Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202420333)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420333

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in:
1. The living room.
2. The bedroom, bathroom, and the leak continuing in the living room.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began in February 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom converted flat. It sits partly beneath another flat and partly directly under the roof.
The resident made 2 separate complaints to the landlord about the issues we are investigating. She shared both sets of complaint responses with us, and the landlord also gave us its records. This investigation looks at how the landlord handled both complaints. To keep things clear, we have split the background into 2 sections: Complaint A and Complaint B.

Complaint A

Between March and December 2023, the resident told the landlord on multiple occasions that water was leaking into her living room from the flat above. During this time, the landlord inspected the flat above and carried out repairs. These included refitting loose tiling, sealing pipes, and replacing the shower tray. The resident’s reports of a leak continued between January and March 2024.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 March 2024. She said there had been a recurring leak in the living room from the flat above since she had moved in. She said she had seen signs of a leak and mould when she viewed the property, and believed the same leak was still happening. She said the landlord told her before she moved in, that the leak would be fixed. Since then, the landlord had given her several different reasons for the leak. The resident said the walls were damaged and the decoration had been ruined. She asked the landlord for materials to redecorate and for compensation for the distress caused.
On 23 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for how long it had taken to resolve the leak and admitted the problem had been ongoing for a year. It said it had booked an appointment that day to access the flat above and fix the leak.
The landlord said that once it stopped the leak, it would carry out repairs to the resident’s home, including removing any damp and mould. It offered £400 compensation to recognise the inconvenience the ongoing leak had caused. It also offered £200 for decorating materials once the repairs were complete. The landlord said it had shared the complaint with its repairs team to understand why the issue had taken so long to resolve and how it could do better in the future.
On 21 May 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said she did not believe the landlord was ‘doing its part’ to fix the leak.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 July 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It explained that it had struggled to access the flat above. It said the leak was now fixed but diagnosing the cause had needed several visits and specialist assessment. It said it had also completed plastering and carried out a mould wash in the resident’s flat. It confirmed that decoration works were booked for later that month. The landlord offered £300 in compensation for the ongoing delays, bringing the total compensation offered through the complaints process to £900.

Complaint B

On 1 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that a wet patch had appeared in the living room in the same place the landlord had repaired a few weeks earlier.
On 5 November 2024, she reported that water from the flat above had entered her living room, cut the electricity, and damaged some of her electrical items.
The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 8 November 2024. She said the stress of dealing with the leak from the flat above for 2 years had made her unwell. She said the operative sent to fix the leak had caused a flood in her living room by knocking a pipe without turning off the water supply. She said she suffered from anxiety and depression and had not been able to have friends or family visit her since moving in.
On 20 November 2024, the resident told the landlord that water was entering her bedroom. She believed it was coming from the roof.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It admitted the leak from the flat above had been a long-standing issue and said earlier repairs had not fixed the problem properly. It said it had paused repairs to the damage in the resident’s flat until it could confirm the leak above was fully resolved. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in completing repairs in the resident’s flat, and £150 for the impact the delay had caused.
On 9 January 2025, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said she could still hear water leaking into her bedroom and it was causing mould. She said many repairs were still outstanding and her home was barely ‘liveable.’
The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 31 January 2025. It said it had recently carried out more major works in the bathroom of the flat above, which it believed was the source of the leak in the living room. It said works in early 2024 had been done to a poor standard, so it carried out new works to fix the problem. It recognised the resident’s frustration that a leak had since returned. It believed the water entering the flat was now coming from the roof. It also said the chimney stack looked to be in poor condition and that it had already raised repairs to address these issues.
The landlord said it could not confirm if the leak had a new source or if its recent repairs had failed, so it was not yet able to take full responsibility. It offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, bringing the total compensation offered through the complaints process to £550.
On 2 February 2025, the landlord inspected the resident’s flat. It found:
1. Damp, mould, and an active leak in the bedroom and bathroom
2. High moisture levels in the external walls
3. Water entering the flat from the roof and a blocked downpipe
4. Cracked mortar and pointing at the roof edge (undercloak)
5. Damp and cold spots caused by poor insulation
6. The chimney stack needed further investigation
The resident brought her complaint to our service on 19 February 2025. She said the landlord had not dealt with the leaks properly. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and said leaks were still active in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told the landlord that her living conditions were affecting her mental and physical health. We understand her concerns and recognise this has been a difficult time. However, claims about personal injury or harm to health, fall outside the complaints process. These claims would need to be taken up with the landlord’s public liability insurer or through the courts, where medical evidence and claims of negligence would be reviewed.
If the resident believes the landlord’s actions – or lack of action – have affected her health, she may want to get independent legal advice about making a personal injury claim. We have, however, looked at any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, and how it responded to her concerns about her health.

Legal policy and framework

The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, walls, ceilings, gutters, and outside walls.
The landlord’s lettable standard policy sets out what residents can expect when moving into a property. The landlord commits to ensuring walls and ceilings are free from damp and structurally sound.
The landlord’s repairs policy splits repairs into 2 categories:
1. Emergency repairs – these involve an immediate risk to safety or the property and should be completed within 24 hours
2. Non-emergency repairs – these should be completed within 15 working days

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the living room

Complaint A

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported a leak in the living room in March 2023, around 1 month after she moved in. It is possible the problem began before the tenancy started, but the evidence suggests it only became noticeable when the tenant in the flat above started using the shower. It is reasonable to say the leak may not have been obvious until the resident was living in the property.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not say whether it was aware of any problem before the resident moved in. Because the leak happened so soon after the tenancy began and continued to reoccur, the landlord should have considered this and explained its position. It failed to do so.
This matters because we cannot tell if the landlord took reasonable steps to check for damage before letting the property, in line with its lettable standard policy. Not giving an explanation left the resident unsure whether the leak could have been avoided, and likely added to her concern about how the property was managed.
The landlord’s records show that it treated the March 2023 report as an emergency and raised an urgent job in response. Although we have not seen the resident’s original report, the landlord’s notes describe the leak as ‘uncontainable.’ Based on this, it was appropriate to treat the issue as an emergency, in line with its repairs policy. This shows the landlord took the report seriously and acted quickly to investigate the cause.
In response to the resident’s March 2023 report, the landlord carried out repairs to loose tiling in the flat above. The evidence shows there were no further reports of water entering the resident’s flat until July 2023, which suggests the work was at least temporarily effective in resolving the issue.
The landlord’s records show it continued to investigate the leak in July and August 2023. It carried out repairs to the pipework in the flat above and looked into other possible causes. From September to November 2023, the landlord struggled to gain access to the flat above to carry on with its investigations. It resumed work in December, and visits to Flat A continued into January, February, and March 2024. This indicated that the landlord was actively trying to find and fix the source of the leak.
However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed during this process. It should have provided regular updates after each investigation or repair and clearly explained the next steps it was going to take. Doing so would have shown that it understood the importance of clear communication and helped build the resident’s trust in how it was managing the case.
The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, published in May 2025, highlights how important it is to keep residents informed, particularly where repairs are delayed or rely on access to other properties. In this case, the landlord’s failure to provide updates meant the resident was unaware of the steps being taken in the background. This likely left her feeling ignored and uncertain about whether the issue was being taken seriously.
In addition, we have seen no evidence the landlord assessed the condition of the resident’s home while it was addressing the leak in the flat above. It should have considered its obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. The Act requires landlords to make sure their properties are safe and suitable to live in. It also requires them to take action if there are serious problems like damp or leaks.
The resident had been reporting a leak for a full year, but the landlord had still not assessed whether this affected her ability to use the living room or live safely in the property overall. Because it did not carry out or record any assessment of the resident’s living conditions, we cannot say whether the property remained suitable to occupy. This means the landlord likely would not have known either. That was a failing. Without an assessment, the landlord risked leaving the resident in poor conditions and without full use of her home for longer than necessary.
The resident continued to report a leak in her living room throughout May 2024. The landlord’s records also show she repeatedly asked when it would repair the damage to her flat. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to these further reports or provided any meaningful update.
As referenced above, the Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, highlights that residents should not have to chase landlords for updates or action. When landlords fail to follow up or respond, it damages trust and increases the likelihood of escalation.
That is what happened in this case. On 21 May 2024, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint, stating understandably, that she did not feel the landlord was doing its part to resolve the issue. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s continued reports and concerns was unacceptable.
The landlord’s records show that it resolved the leak in the flat above by the end of June 2024. It then carried out plastering and a mould wash in the resident’s flat, followed by painting the affected areas in July 2024. It also offered the resident £200 towards the cost of decoration materials. These were positive and appropriate steps. They showed that the landlord had taken action to address the damage and restore the property to a liveable standard.
This approach was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. These say landlords should ‘put things right’ by taking actions to return residents to the position they would have been in had the problem not occurred.
In addition to the restorative actions, the landlord awarded the resident £700 compensation for distress and inconvenience during the period of complaint. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. It suggests awards of £600 to £1000, where failings by a landlord have had a significant impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord failed to resolve a leak for 12 months, did not keep the resident updated, and did not assess the condition of her home during that time. These were serious failings that caused understandable distress.
However, the evidence also shows the landlord took regular action to investigate the issue in the flat above and did not ignore the reports, which shows it was not acting carelessly or ignoring the problem. In that context, we are satisfied that the compensation offered was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. £700 is broadly in line with what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident if it had not done so already.
Still, although the landlord made efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns, the time it took to fully resolve the leak – 12 months – still requires further consideration. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that the leak was difficult to trace and required multiple attendances to identify and fix the source. We accept that some leaks are complex and may take more than 1 attempt to resolve. However, the more complex the repair, the more important it is for landlords to show how they are managing the issue, particularly when delays are prolonged.
That includes showing that it was not simply repeating the same work, but methodically tracing the source and learning from each failed attempt. That could include specialist reports, contractor notes, or updates confirming what each visit aimed to address. We have seen little evidence of this kind of technical oversight in the landlord’s records.
In addition, its records show 2 jobs for the flat above that were booked incorrectly, leading to wasted appointments and further delay. While these were administrative errors, they contributed to the overall lack of progress. Taken together, the absence of clear technical planning and repeated booking issues mean we cannot say the 12-month delay was reasonable.
Based on the findings above, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the living room. This lower-level finding is based on the fact the landlord eventually resolved the issue and offered proportionate redress to put things right. However, this investigation identified additional failings, which the landlord did not fully acknowledge in its complaint response. Further learning is therefore needed, to ensure the landlord understands how its service fell short and avoids similar failings in the future.
The landlord must pay the resident the £700 compensation it already offered during the complaints process, if it has not already done so. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section of the report.
The landlord must pay the resident the £200 compensation it already offered during the complaints process, to cover decoration materials, if it has not already done so.
The landlord must write to the resident to explain the outcome of the learning it said it undertook with its repairs team following her complaint. This should include what it identified about why the repair took so long, what it has learned, and what steps (if any), it has taken as a result.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bedroom, bathroom, and the leak continuing in the living room

Complaint B

Living room

The landlord’s records show that in August 2024 the resident reported signs of a leak in the living room. She said it was in the same area the landlord had repaired just a few weeks earlier. The landlord should have inspected the resident’s flat within its standard timescales to assess its condition and consider whether the previous repairs failed. The fact that the problem reoccurred so soon should also have prompted the landlord to consider whether a more urgent response was needed. This would have demonstrated that it was committed to meeting its repair obligations to keep the structure of the resident’s property in repair.
Instead, the evidence shows that 2 weeks passed before the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report and attempted to call her. However, this was after she had already chased the landlord twice, expressing that she ‘felt upset and left in the dark’. This lack of communication likely left the resident feeling ignored and unsupported, at a time when she was already coping with unresolved disrepair in her home.
In addition, we have not seen a record of what action was taken after the landlord called the resident. Without evidence showing that it inspected the property or took steps to address the new report, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord met its repair obligations or properly considered the risk that the earlier repair had failed. This gap in the record undermines transparency and accountability in the landlord’s handling of repeat issues.
The evidence shows the leak into the resident’s living room continued into October 2024. The landlord inspected the resident’s flat within 15 working days of her report, which was in line with its standard repair timescales. Although it noted the leak was still active in the living room, the landlord found there was no visible plasterwork or mould wash needed. This response demonstrated a more structured approach than before. It showed the landlord had satisfied itself about the condition of the property, in line with its duty to keep the home fit for habitation.
In its stage 1 complaint response in November 2024, the landlord acknowledged that earlier repairs to the flat above had been completed to a poor standard by the subcontractors it was using at the time. It explained that it had since appointed a new contractor and, in December 2024, carried out a full bathroom refit in the flat above to address the cause of the leak. It was appropriate that the landlord was transparent about the poor workmanship and took steps to put things right. However, its acknowledgment also indicates that it lacked sufficient oversight of the contractors it had engaged to carry out repairs. This raises concerns about how the landlord assured itself that its repair obligations were being met.
The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report highlights that poor contract management and a failure to monitor works in progress can seriously undermine residents’ trust and a landlord’s ability to meet its repair responsibilities. It emphasises the need for landlords to actively manage contractors, regularly check the quality of their work, and ensure clear communication. In this case, better oversight may have helped the landlord identify earlier that the original works had not resolved the problem and avoid the extended impact on the resident.
The evidence shows that the leak into the resident’s living room ended in December 2024, following the bathroom refit in the flat above. The landlord also stain-blocked and repainted the affected ceiling and walls in the resident’s flat, and awarded her £250 compensation for the inconvenience and delay from August 2024 to the point the issue was resolved. It was appropriate that the landlord took practical steps to make good the decorative impact of the leak, and that it recognised the distress and disruption caused by the ongoing delay.
We consider the landlord’s offer of £250 a broadly proportionate award to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused over a 4-month period. This is because its inspection in November 2024 did not suggest the resident’s living conditions had seriously deteriorated. Although we recognise the resident found the situation highly stressful, we are satisfied that the landlord’s offer was a reasonable attempt to acknowledge that impact.

Bedroom and bathroom

On 20 November 2024, the resident reported that rainwater was coming into her bedroom, which she believed was caused by a leak from the roof. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have arranged to address the issue within 15 working days. While the evidence shows the landlord asked its contractor to investigate the leak a few days later, there is no record that this inspection happened.
Instead, it was not until 14 December 2024, 18 working days later that an operative, while attending to a different repair, noted signs of dampness and mould on the bedroom’s external walls. The landlord then gave the resident a dehumidifier and later arranged a mould wash. These actions were positive and helped improve the resident’s living conditions. However, the landlord’s handling of the matter at this stage appeared disjointed and reactive, with no clear plan to investigate and confirm the source of the leak.
A further 6 weeks passed, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In this it said it believed water was entering the resident’s home from the roof. It arranged an inspection of the resident’s flat and building on 3 February 2025, which confirmed there was an active leak, damp, and mould in the bedroom and bathroom. The inspection also recorded high moisture readings in the walls.
Despite this, we have seen no evidence the landlord set out its next steps to the resident. This meant that, even after the complaints process concluded, she remained without a clear plan or timescale for resolving the leak, damp, and mould confirmed in her home. By failing to provide a clear plan or timescale for completing works, the landlord did not demonstrate how it would ensure the resident’s home remained in repair. This fell short of its obligations under the occupancy agreement.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £300 compensation at the end of the complaint’s process. While we acknowledge its attempt at recognising the resident’s continued distress, we are not satisfied this amount adequately reflects the full extent of the disruption caused. In our view, it does not go far enough to take account of the prolonged period the resident has been left with unresolved disrepair, and the significant impact this has had on her ability to use her home. We have explained our position in more detail under the summary section below.

Summary

As of 15 July 2025, the landlord’s records show the repairs needed to fix the leak into the resident’s bedroom and bathroom had still not been completed. This means the resident has been unable to use the full extent of her home for 8 months. During this time, she has continued to live with ongoing disrepair, which is not in line with the landlord’s obligations under the occupancy agreement. As this is a 1-bedroom property, the impact on the resident is likely to have been even greater.
When we looked at the landlord’s records to understand the cause of the continued delay, we found a 12-week period where the landlord took no action. Further delays have been caused by problems with the contractor getting materials, made worse by the landlord’s slow follow-up. This is not acceptable.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bedroom, bathroom, and a leak continuing in the living room.
Although the landlord awarded the resident £550 compensation to account for both elements of the complaint, this amount does not reflect the full extent of the failings identified in this section of the report. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports overall was largely reactive, inconsistent, and poorly coordinated. Crucially, the central issue – the leak affecting the bedroom and bathroom – remains outstanding.
We consider it appropriate that the landlord provide financial redress to reflect the resident’s full enjoyment of the home. Over the 34-week period between 20 November 2024 (when she first reported the leak in her bedroom) and 15 July 2025 (the landlord’s last update), the landlord took little action to address the leak, damp, and mould in the flat. These issues affected both the bedroom and bathroom and although this may not have entirely prevented any one room from being used, it would have had a significant impact on the resident’s use of the property. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
During this 34-week period, the resident was charged £117.43 in rent per week. Based on 10% of the rent, the total amenity loss compensation is calculated at £399.26. While this figure is not a precise measure of all losses the resident experienced, it represents a fair and proportionate amount given the circumstances. The landlord must therefore pay the resident a £399.26 amenity loss payment.
The landlord must also pay the resident the £550 compensation it already offered during the complaints process, if it has not already done so. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section of the report.
The landlord must arrange another inspection of the resident’s flat to confirm if her current living conditions are suitable in the flat. If not, it must consider offering alternative accommodation while repairs are completed. If it decides not to offer alternative accommodation, it must explain the reasons for this decision, including how it has considered the resident’s circumstances and the conditions of the home.
The landlord must provide the resident with a detailed schedule of works, clearly setting out what repairs remain outstanding and the expected timescales for completion.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.

Complaint A

The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 March 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgment 14 working days later, which was outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It then sent its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days after that. This meant the overall response to the resident’s complaint was delayed.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 May 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 31 working days later, which was also outside the time allowed by its policy.
These delays at both stages of the complaints process showed the landlord did not follow its own procedure. This likely caused extra worry for the resident, who was already dealing with unresolved disrepair.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the delay in responding, which showed some recognition of the service failure. However, it should also have offered the resident compensation to recognise the combined delays and inconvenience caused throughout its handling of the resident’s complaint.
This approach would have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, which encourages landlords to offer appropriate redress where they identify service failures.

Complaint B

The resident’s stage 1 complaint said that she suffered from anxiety and depression, and that the poor condition of her flat meant she had been unable to have friends or family visit. The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses or show any empathy towards how the situation was affecting her. It also missed the opportunity to enquire further to understand whether the resident had any vulnerabilities that needed to be taken into account in its handling of her concerns. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate a more resident-centred approach.
The complaints process should be a tool for explaining and resolving issues clearly and fairly. Landlords must ensure their responses are specific, clear, and directly address the comments made, so that residents feel they are being listened to. In this case, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or engage with the resident’s comments, likely contributed to her sense of being dismissed and unsupported, at a time when she was already struggling with unresolved disrepair.
Finally, the resident’s stage 1 complaint also said that while carrying out repairs in the flat above, an operative knocked a pipe, causing a significant leak into her living room. She also reported that the leak damaged some of her electrical items. The evidence shows the landlord treated the incident as an emergency and provided a dehumidifier, which was an appropriate and timely response. However, the landlord did not address this incident in its complaint responses. It did not explain whether it had investigated the matter to understand what went wrong or whether the incident could have been avoided.
It should have also set out its position clearly, including whether it accepted any liability for the damaged items or how the resident could pursue a claim through its insurance or another route. Failing to do so likely left the resident feeling her concerns were not being taken seriously, and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s willingness to take ownership of the situation.
Overall, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaints.
The landlord must now write to the resident to set out its position on the reported damage to her electrical items. This should include whether it accepts any responsibility for the damage and whether she can submit a claim via its public liability insurance or another appropriate route.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident but may not have had a permanent impact, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her formal complaints.
The landlord must contact the resident to ask whether she wishes to share any information about health conditions, support needs or other vulnerabilities that may affect how the landlord should manage repairs or future communication with her. If the resident provides this information, the landlord must ensure it is recorded appropriately on her tenancy file.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bedroom, bathroom, and a leak continuing in the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £2,099.36 in compensation, consisting of:
  1. £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the leak in the living room
  2. £200 to cover decoration materials
  3. £399.36, representing 10% of the rent for the property over a 34-week period, to recognise amenity loss
  4. £550 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of a leak in the bedroom, bathroom, and a further leak in the living room
  5. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her formal complaints
These amounts replace any compensation previously offered by the landlord, which can be deducted from the total award if already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to explain the outcome of the learning it said it undertook with its repairs team following her complaint in March 2024. This should include what it identified about why the repair took so long, what it has learned, and what steps (if any), it has taken as a result.
2. Write to the resident to set out its position on the reported damage to her electrical items. This should include whether it accepts any responsibility for the damage and whether she can submit a claim via its public liability insurance or another appropriate route.
3. Arrange another inspection of the resident’s flat to confirm if her current living conditions are suitable in the flat. If not, it must consider offering alternative accommodation while repairs are completed. If it decides not to offer alternative accommodation, it must explain the reasons for this decision, including how it has considered the resident’s circumstances and the conditions of the home.
4. Provide the resident with a detailed schedule of works, clearly setting out what repairs remain outstanding and the expected timescales for completion.
5. Contact the resident to ask whether she wishes to share any information about health conditions, support needs or other vulnerabilities that may affect how the landlord should manage repairs or future communication with her. If the resident provides this information, the landlord must ensure it is recorded appropriately on her tenancy file.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.