Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202333393)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333393

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

19 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of moving the resident to temporary accommodation.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy. He lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow, with his wife and son. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its systems, due to his and his wife’s mobility issues. The resident has said he and his wife have vulnerabilities due to arthritis and Crohn’s disease respectively.
The landlord’s contractor completed a damp survey of the resident’s property on 25 August 2022. It found that there were high moisture readings, black mould was visible and there may be damp throughout the property. It gave the landlord a schedule of works and said it needed to do a further inspection of the resident’s flooring.
The landlord put damp works at the resident’s property on hold on 16 September 2022. This was due to him recovering from surgery and the level of upheaval the landlord felt its repair works would cause him.
The landlord completed a repair to a leak at the resident’s bathroom on 13 November 2022, caused by the shower tray waste not being connected correctly. This was pumping water underneath the house, causing the bathroom and hallway floor to collapse.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord decided it needed to move the resident to temporary housing to complete repair works to his property. It noted that the temporary housing needed to be a bungalow with a level access shower.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord completed a temporary repair to the flooring in the resident’s bathroom. Its records show it did this as the resident had asked it to minimise the disruption its repair works would cause him over the Christmas period.
The landlord’s records show the resident moved to temporary housing on 4 January 2023. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor completed a further damp survey of the resident’s property. It found there was mould growth throughout the property, caused by condensation and a treatment was needed for severe mould and mould spores.
The landlord, its contractor and the resident completed a repairs handover at the property on 15 March 2023. It found there was further repair work still needed to the décor and bathroom sink at the property. Its records show it completed the remaining repairs and the resident moved back into his property sometime at the end of March 2023.
On 29 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint. He said it had forced him to move to a property that was not suitable for disabled people. He was also unhappy that:
1. It was demanding he pay additional rent charges for the temporary housing.
2. It had suggested the cleaning of his property should be split with him.
3. It had refused to send its inspector to check the poor repair work in his property.
4. It had made promises which it had not kept, such as installing a new kitchen and extractor fans in his kitchen.
5. He had to use his own money to replace his carpet so he could move back into his property.
6. The situation had left him and his wife feeling suicidal.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023. It apologised that its service to him had fallen below its expected standard and said:
1. It was sorry that the temporary housing did not meet his standards but moving him had been unavoidable.
2. He had turned down 2 of its temporary properties. As a result, it moved him to a void property which it had told him would not have carpets, furniture or fittings.
3. It had completed repairs to his property in February 2023 and arranged it to be cleaned after he had raised concerns about the standard of its cleaning.
4. It was unable to comment on the status of the insurance claim he had made against it for damages to his belongings.
5. Its technical officer did not recall promising him it would install a new kitchen or extractor fans at his property. His kitchen was in a repairable condition, and it signed off the repair works to the area as being satisfactory.
6. It had arranged to add his property to its planned works schedule, which would install new extractor fans. This would be done before the end of 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 June 2023 and asked it to escalate his complaint. On 19 June 2023 the landlord asked him to confirm what it was about its response he was unhappy about. He responded the same day and said:
1. He was unhappy its inspector had not looked at the repair work to his property.
2. It had told him he needed to share responsibility for the cleaning of the property with it.
3. He had not refused a single property it had offered him as temporary housing.
4. It had told him that it would furnish the temporary property, but this had not happened. The beds in the temporary property were too small for his household.
5. It had told him he would be in temporary housing for about 2 weeks, but it ended up being 3 months.
6. It had promised him it would install a new kitchen in his property, as part of its repair works.
7. It had ruined his home, and it looked like it had “been thrown back together.”
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 follow-up response on 30 June 2023. It said:
1. It had visited his property on 22 June 2023 to inspect the areas he felt had been damaged or not returned to him in a satisfactory condition. It found:
  1. The front door trim was the wrong size.
  2. The standard of its painting was lower than that of the resident’s.
  3. There were scratches to the internal doors, and it had not fitted the oven extractor fan correctly. The resident had told it that he would repair these himself.
  4. There were loose or defective bathroom trims, substandard sealant and it had not boxed in the radiator pipes.
  5. There were cracks in the bathroom sink and it felt this would fail within 12 months.
  6. The kitchen drawers were not closing correctly.
2. It had raised repair jobs for the repair issues it had found.
3. Its inspection had also found the kitchen worktop was around 4 millimetres short of the end panel, leaving chipboard exposed. However, there was no practical remedy for this without replacing all the worktops.
4. Its inspection had also found there were small stones under the vinyl flooring. However, it was not possible for it to rectify this without damaging the vinyl beyond repair.
5. It was sorry about the standard of the temporary property he had moved to, but it had told him this was a void property without carpets.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 July 2023 and emailed it on 25 July 2023, asking to escalate his complaint. He said:
1. It was absurd that it was not prepared to discuss its complaint response findings.
2. He agreed to accept its offer of the temporary housing, if it provided large rugs and furniture.
3. He had received threatening letters about rent and council tax arrears from the landlord, despite it telling him that both would be covered by his benefit entitlement.
4. He could not understand why its technical officer had asked him and his wife to clean up after its workforce.
5. It had caused him suffering and the stress this had caused his family was irreparable.
6. Its repair workers were turning up to his property unannounced and then cancelling jobs as he was not in.
On 8 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. It would take responsibility for the council tax at the temporary property, and it had reinstated his council tax support.
2. It had tried to call him before visiting his property, but the telephone number it had for him was not recognised. It therefore booked repairs on “a proxy appointment.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2023. He wanted to make a complaint against its technical officer, who he believed:
1. Had tried to get him and his wife to clean his property after it had completed its repairs.
2. Had lied about him refusing other offers of temporary housing. He wanted it to tell him what other properties he had refused.
3. Had promised him a new kitchen, but it did not provide this.
4. Had taken his fridge-freezer to the temporary housing but had not yet returned it to his property.
We contacted the landlord on 6 February and 20 February 2024 on behalf of the resident, to ask it to send its complaint response to him. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 February 2024. It apologised to him for its delay in responding and:
1. Said its insurance team had rejected his claim for damages to belongings at his property on 25 September 2023. It referred his claim to its contractor’s insurer who had undertaken repair work to his shower, related to the damage. Its contractor’s insurer refused liability as the fault was not found within their agreed defect period.
2. Said it accepted it could have provided him with better information and advice and supported him in a more positive manner.
3. Offered him £875 compensation:
  1. £500 as a goodwill gesture towards the damage to his belongings.
  2. £200 for the service it provided.
  3. £175 for its delay in responding to him.

Post internal complaint

The resident contacted us on 19 March 2024. He felt the amount of compensation that the landlord had awarded did not accurately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
On 10 October 2024 the resident told us that he had accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation. He also said it had threatened him with eviction from his property due to rent and council tax arrears, which he disputed he owed the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that the situation has impacted his health, as well as his wife’s. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord considered the resident’s and his wife’s health conditions.
In his communication with us the resident has said he made an insurance claim against the landlord and then its contractor, for damage to his belongings. He was unhappy with the handling of his claim with the landlord’s and then its contractor’s insurance department. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. Neither can this Service assess the handling or decision-making of an insurance claim. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this concern.
The landlord’s stage 2 and stage 1 follow-up response had the same reference number as its stage 1 response. It also sent the resident another stage 1 response with a different reference number, which its records show did not complete its internal complaints process. However, as all 4 of its complaint response related to the same issues that the resident brought to this service, we believe it is appropriate to consider all the responses as part of this investigation.
We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred during the period in question, we will not investigate the issue because the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side. In such cases, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure.

The landlord’s handling of moving the resident to temporary accommodation

The landlord’s decant policy states:
1. Where temporary accommodation is required, its housing officer must start the process on its IT system and state the reason(s) that it is required and communicate the process with the tenant.
2. A temporary accommodation request form is to be completed. This should then be sent to 2 senior managers for approval, and a homelessness assessment should be completed by contacting its housing solutions team.
3. Its housing options team will email its housing officer with a list of temporary properties available, who will then contact resident to discuss these.
4. If the tenant(s) refuse the offer of temporary accommodation, then the housing officer is to discuss with the tenant(s) the reasons why it could put them at risk if their home is not safe or suitable for them to return to or occupy.
5. Its housing officer should carry out a visual inspection of the temporary accommodation. Information relating to the property should be provided to the tenant(s).
6. The temporary property does not come furnished. If tenant’s need furniture at the temporary property, then they may need to take out a furnished package for which the tenant(s) will be liable to pay. A temporary property furniture order form will need to be completed.
7. Council tax on the tenant(s) original property is to be covered by the landlord if the tenant(s) moves temporarily into a property. Tenant(s) who move into temporary accommodation will be liable for the costs whilst residing at that property. The cost of rent on the tenant(s) original property will be covered by the landlord.
On 16 September 2022 the landlord delayed starting repair works to the resident’s property. It was concerned moving him to temporary accommodation would have a detrimental impact on him. As a result, it wanted him to sign a disclaimer to agree to this. This was positive approach from the landlord and shows it considered the impact this would have on his health issues. However, given that the repair issues were impacting on the resident, it should have evidenced that it had discussed this with him. It is not evident it sought the resident’s input on this decision and there is no record of a signed disclaimer in the landlord’s evidence. Although the resident did not raise this as part of his complaint, it is important that landlords document discussions with residents on such issues.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 9 August 2023 addressed the resident’s concerns about council tax at the temporary property. It was reasonable that it accepted responsibility for council tax at the property and stopped its recovery action for council tax arrears. While it was positive that it provided a solution to the concern, its complaint response did not provide an explanation why it did not follow its decant policy or offer an apology for any distress and inconvenience this caused. This was a missed opportunity to maintain the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord’s records show that on 21 November 2022 it told the resident it would be moving him to temporary accommodation on 3 January 2023. However, it had yet to find a suitable property for him. Its removal contractor was not available on this date to take the resident’s belongings into storage, so it moved the date to 10 January 2023. However, there is no record that it told him of this delay or when its removal contractor moved his belongings into storage. It would have been reasonable for it to have kept him informed about the delay, told him when it had moved his belongings and what items it had moved. Its failure to do so would have added to the distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident moved to temporary accommodation on 4 January 2023. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that shows the type of property that it moved him to. However, the resident has said the property was a fourth floor flat. Although this was accessible by a lift, he told us that this was out-of-order for much of his stay at the property. Given that it had identified the resident’s accessibility needs and property requirements, it is unclear why the landlord did not temporarily move him to a bungalow, as it had planned. The landlord’s records do not evidence any discussions with the resident or document the reasons for its approach. Such records are important to provide an audit trail for the landlord’s decision making and their absence amounts to poor record keeping.
The landlord’s damp works completion form said it had fully furnished the resident’s temporary accommodation. It also arranged to put his furniture into storage whilst he was in the temporary accommodation. It is reasonable to conclude at this point it would be furnishing the temporary property. Therefore, it is unclear why its stage 1 response said it had told the resident the temporary property would not have carpets, furniture or fittings. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and distress.
Regardless of whether the landlord would fully furnish the resident’s temporary property, there is no record it managed his expectations. It would have been reasonable for it to have clearly explained to him what it would and would not be providing for him at the property. However, it failed to do so.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it moved the resident into one of its void properties. This was because he had refused 2 of its temporary properties. However, the resident told us that the landlord did not offer him 2 properties, as it told him these were unsuitable for him as they had stairs. There is no evidence to confirm this either way. However, there is no record that the landlord completed a temporary accommodation form, a homelessness assessment, provided a list of suitable properties, discussed the reason he had refused properties, inspected the property, or gave him information about it. This shows it did not follow the obligations of its decant policy to complete a temporary accommodation form. The landlord also missed opportunities to set out its position on this matter at an earlier stage, as its complaint responses were silent on this issue.
The resident showed the landlord’s technical officer a video he had taken of the temporary accommodation showing his concerns about the lack of furniture. Its stage 1 follow-up response acknowledged the video showed exposed floorboards at the property. It said it had told him the property would not be carpeted or furnished. However, it would have been reasonable for its response to have clearly explained to him when it told him of this or sent him copies of any letters or forms that recorded this information. Its failure to justify its position caused the resident distress as he continued to pursue the landlord for answers on this matter.
The landlord’s evidence said it had made provisions for the resident’s comfort when he moved into the temporary property. As it was aware of his vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided him with support during his stay in temporary accommodation. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence that shows it did this.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was poor and its communication with the resident could have been more effective. This has caused confusion in this investigation in assessing the resident’s complaint. It is likely that it also caused the resident confusion.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 follow-up response partly upheld the resident’s complaint about the issue, it did not offer him a remedy. The compensation it offered him in its stage 2 response was not related to this issue. Therefore, we do not consider that it took steps to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of moving the resident to temporary accommodation. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time.’ This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 1-day, urgent repairs within 5 days and non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. It will carry out repairs efficiently and to a high standard; It will provide a flexible, convenient and customer-oriented service that gives priority to the safety, comfort and convenience of occupants. It is committed to providing a customer focused, responsive and high-quality service.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will attend and investigate reports of damp and mould within 10 working days to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation.
The landlord’s records show it inspected the resident’s property on 17 August 2022, after he had reported concerns about damp. It decided that it needed a specialist survey, which was reasonable so it could diagnose the issue. It was positive that the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 18 August 2022 to tell him it would carry out a damp proofing and timber condition survey on 23 August 2022. This shows it followed its damp and mould policy obligations, which was reasonable.
The contractor sent the landlord its damp survey report on 25 August 2022. The landlord also completed an asbestos survey of the resident’s property on 12 September 2022, which did not find any present in his property. While this shows the landlord was taking steps to address the repair issues, there is no record that it told the resident of the findings of its damp contractor’s survey, or its asbestos survey. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so to keep him updated on the progress of the repairs.
The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property on 4 November 2022. Its records show that it completed this inspection on 23 November 2022. It is unclear what the delay was or if it told the resident of this. However, this was 3 working days beyond its damp and mould policy’s published time limit, which shows it did not follow its policy’s obligations.
The landlord raised an urgent repair job on 4 November 2022 to inspect a leak in the resident’s bathroom. It completed its inspection on 13 November 2022, 4 days beyond its repairs policy’s published time limit. It is unclear what the delay was or if it told the resident the reasons for this. It would have been reasonable for it to have updated him on the progress of the repair.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord completed a temporary repair to the resident’s bathroom flooring. Its records show that it did so at the resident’s request to avoid disruption to him over the Christmas period, until it could begin full repair works in January 2023. It was positive that the landlord accommodated the resident’s request. However, given the resident’s distress at the safety risks posed by the collapsed flooring, it would have been helpful for it to have explained how the temporary works mitigated his concerns of risks.
The landlord’s contractor completed a further damp and mould survey at the resident’s property on 4 January 2023. It found that it needed to complete a mould treatment throughout the property. Although it recorded condensation as the cause, its survey did not record the temperature or humidity levels, which it would have been reasonable for it to have done so. It is unclear if the resident’s belongings had been moved out of the property at this time, as it had not completed this part of the survey sheet. As its earlier damp survey was restricted due to this, it would have been reasonable for its contractor to have clearly recorded this on its inspection form. This was a missed opportunity for it to ensure there were no other underlying causes and that the action it was taking was correct.
The resident told us and the landlord that he expected to stay in the temporary property for 2 weeks, but he was there for 3 months. Although, it found it needed to complete further repair work on 17 January 2023, there is no evidence that shows it told him of this or the progress of repairs at his property. As it needed to move him to temporary accommodation, it would have been reasonable for it to have clearly listed all the repairs it needed to do, along with a timeline for expected completion and updated him on any delays it faced. The landlord has not shown that it followed the obligations of its repairs policy to provide a customer-oriented service that gives priority to the safety, comfort and convenience to the resident.
The resident had raised concerns with the landlord, at a handover meeting about the standard of repairs to his property. Its records show it told its contractor to resolve this, which it did, and the resident moved back to his property at the end of March 2023. However, he continued to raise concerns about the standard of the repairs and condition of the property with the landlord. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that shows what was discussed about the cleaning of the property. However, as the resident put this point to the landlord, its complaint responses should have provided a position that it did a reasonable investigation on this matter. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord did visit the resident’s property as part of its stage 1 follow-up investigation, which was positive. It found there were multiple repairs still needed at his property. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this as part of its stage 1 investigation, especially as his complaint raised concerns about it not sending an inspector to check the repair work. Had it done so, it could have resolved the issues for the resident at an earlier stage.
On 27 July 2023 the landlord completed the further repairs it had found. However, its stage 1 follow-up response said the resident had agreed to repaint internal doors that had scratches and paint splashes on, for which he acknowledged he would incur the costs. As this issue had been caused by the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to have worked with him to resolve the issue, such as offering to pay for the cost of materials.
Had the landlord ensured it provided the resident with a high-quality repairs service, the issues would not have been a complaint point. Its follow-up response was poor in addressing his concerns about its repairs to his kitchen worktop and flooring. Although it acknowledged it should have fitted his kitchen worktop better, it is not evident why it could not repair this without replacing all of the worktops. It would have been reasonable to have worked with him to resolve the issue, such as offering to remove the flooring for him. It is a concern that it did not take steps to rectify these issues, and the evidence shows it did not follow its repair policy’s obligations, to complete repair work to a high standard.
The resident was also unhappy that the landlord had not fitted a new kitchen to his property. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that shows it agreed to this. Its stage 1 follow-up response did address this issue which was reasonable. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it managed his expectations at an early stage. Had it provided him with a scope of works it would have been clear to him what repair works it had planned.
Despite the resident clearly including concerns about repairs to his property in his complaint and escalation, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint did not provide a detailed response and instead only made general comments about the complaint without being specific. This demonstrated an insufficient complaint investigation and was a missed opportunity to resolve this issue. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided a timeline of events and clear reasons for the decisions it reached.
The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the poor service it had provided him. While this went some way to address the impact on the resident, we do not consider it was sufficient to put right the impact of its handling of repairs to his property.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and its record keeping could have been better. This has caused confusion in this investigation in assessing the resident’s complaint. It took around 7 months to complete repairs to the resident’s property, which caused him inconvenience and distress. While it took some steps to put things right, its failure to use its complaints process as an effective resolution tool inconvenienced the resident as he had to spend time and effort chasing answers.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450 compensation, which replaces the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of receiving a complaint and 25 working days at stage 1 follow-up and stage 2. A stage 1 follow-up complaint will be investigated independently of the services involved in a resident’s complaint, usually by a member of its complaints team.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Where residents raise additional complaints during an investigation and the stage one response has already been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns or tell him if it had upheld his complaint. It did not consider the distress the issues had caused him, which he had clearly set out when he raised his complaint. It did not respond to his concerns about the cleaning of his property or the rent charges he was disputing. This was a failure in its complaint handling.
It was positive that the landlord visited the resident’s property as part of its stage 1 follow-up investigation. However, it did not provide him with a response to his concerns about the cleaning of the property, the size of the beds it provided in the temporary property or why it had not fully furnished this too. This was a failure in its complaint handling, as it left him with unanswered questions, that he had to spend more time and trouble chasing it for answers.
The same technical officer sent the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 1 follow-up response. This was unreasonable and a failure to meet the obligations of its complaint’s policy, to have his complaint investigated by someone independent of the service involved in his complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2023, to escalate his complaint. He clearly set out the reasons why he was unhappy with its response. It was unreasonable that it asked him on 21 July 2023 to confirm the reasons why he was unhappy with its response. This is likely to have caused the resident distress, as he told it that he had already given his reasons.
The resident again asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 July 2023. It noted his dissatisfaction on 31 July 2023 and asked him what outcome he was looking for. This was unreasonable as it was 10 working days since he had asked it to escalate his complaint, yet he did not know if it had done so. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and distress.
When the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint he raised new complaint issues with it. It was reasonable that it logged the new issues as a new complaint, which was compliant with the Code at the time. However, there is no record that it escalated his original complaint to stage 2. There is also no record that the landlord sent the resident acknowledgement at any stage of his complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained to him what issues it was considering as a new complaint and at stage 2. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and was a complaint handling failure.
After we had sent the landlord a final notice for action, it sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 21 February 2024. This was 154 working days after he had asked it to escalate his complaint. This was unreasonable as it was not in line with policy or the Code to respond at stage 2 within 25 working days.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns. It did not tell him which temporary properties he had refused, despite him asking it on 5 September 2023 to do so. Although it acknowledged things went wrong, it did not provide him with an explanation.
While the £175 compensation it offered him was in line with our remedies guidance, it did not identify all the failures we have found, so a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate. Given this, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and an apology to the resident ordered which acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of moving the resident to temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £800, comprising:
1. £350 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures identified in its handling of moving the resident to temporary accommodation.
2. £450 for the failures identified in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide an apology letter from a senior manager to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Inspect the resident’s property and provide him and this Service with its position on the standard of repair to his kitchen worktop and what it steps it can take to remedy his concerns about this.
3. Reiterate its offer of £175 in relation to its complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.

Recommendation

It is recommended the landlord arranges complaints handling training for its staff to ensure its complaints policy is followed and suitable records kept.