From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202312895)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312895

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 May 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

  1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a pest control problem and its handling of pest proofing and remedial repairs.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use the kitchen.

c.      The landlord’s response to the resident concerns about the landlord’s communications.

  1. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1st floor flat.
  2. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint in February 2023. The landlord issued the final stage 2 response in July 2023.
  3. During the complaint process:

a.     The resident said:

  1. The landlord had not arranged pest control, pest proofing works, or completed remedial repairs within a timely manner.
  2. She had experienced significant inconvenience due to the landlord’s inaction and poor communication. The resident said she had been unable to use her kitchen and had needed to chase the landlord repeatedly for updates.
  3. The landlord should pay compensation in recognition of the disruption and negative impact she had experienced.

b.     The landlord:

  1. Accepted there had delay in requesting pest control and carrying out repairs to the kitchen ceiling. However, it did not accept that the kitchen was unusable.
  2. Accepted that it ought to have checked with the resident following the stage 1 complaint response that the substantive issues had been resolved.
  3. Accepted that there had been a lack of communication, lack of ownership, and lack of coordination in its handling of the substantive issues. It also identified delays in its complaint handling.
  4. Explained how it had learned from the complaint and committed to a course of action to improve its future service.
  5. Made an offer of compensation reflecting the issues and service failures it itself had identified. This compensation was broken down as follows:

(1)  £200 compensation at stage 1, in recognition of delays carrying out pest control works, delays repairing the kitchen ceiling, having to conduct repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem, for the resident having to repeatedly chase for appointments, and for the inconvenience caused.

(2)  £200 compensation at stage 2, in recognition of the number of calls and emails made by the resident, for inconvenience, failure to follow up progress, lack of ownership, and having to carry out repeat visits.

(3)  £15 compensation in recognition of a missed appointment, identified by the landlord at stage 2.

(4)  £100 compensation for delays issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.

  1. The resident brought her complaint to us in July 2023 because the landlord had not completed the pest proofing and remedial works to which it had committed. The landlord has since completed these works. But the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation that was offered by the landlord.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between January 2023 and July 2023. This being the period the resident first reported issues with squirrels to the date the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted. This report may reference events that happened outside of this timescale, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord in the final complaint response.

Obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. The landlord was under a contractual and statutory obligation, under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It also had an obligation to keep the property free of hazards that were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. The landlord would be expected to take preventative measures to mitigate the likelihood or risk from infection from pests, like squirrels.
  2. According to the landlord’s pest and wildlife policy, problems or nuisance caused by wild animals must be investigated first, as many animals are legally protected and removing them can be a criminal offence. The landlord’s responsibilities are to:

a.     Identify and block any potential access points in the structure of the property

b.     Repair any damage to the structure of the property and to any damaged cables or pipework.

c.      Eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas, or that have been caused by its own inaction.

  1. The landlord had a responsive repairs and maintenance policy, which set out its expected timescale for completing repairs. The landlord will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. The landlord will carry out all non-emergency repairs as soon as possible but within 28 days.
  2. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord may award between £50 and £250 where there has been a service failure which has had some impact on the resident. Between £250 and £700 compensation where there has been considerable failure but no permanent impact on the resident. Over £700 compensation where a failure has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. It may also award £15 where a member of staff or its repairs contractor fails to attend an appointment. And up to a maximum of £50 where a repair is not carried out within an agreed timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a pest control problem and its handling of pest proofing and remedial repairs.

  1. The landlord raised a routine works instruction on 16 January 2023 after the resident reported a hole in the kitchen ceiling and a hairline crack in the hallway. The job notes state that the resident did not know how this has had happened but there was debris and plaster falling from the ceiling and an external hole which needed to be blocked up.
  2. The resident first reported problems with pests to the landlord on 18 January 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that a general enquiry was raised in relation to this on the same date. It is unclear from the evidence seen if a correlation had been made between the hole in the kitchen ceiling and the squirrels at this time.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 19 January 2023, that she was concerned that more debris was falling from the ceiling. The landlord responded by scheduling a repairs appointment for 31 January 2023 in line with the resident’s own availability. It is unclear why this repair was later cancelled and rearranged for 14 February 2023. But this was still within expected repair timescales.
  4. It is evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord, that a link had been drawn between the hole in the kitchen ceiling and the squirrels by 26 January 2023. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly chased the landlord between 26 January 2023 and 10 February 2023 about its intentions concerning pest control, pest proofing, and remedial repairs. The adequacy of the landlord’s communications will be assessed later as a separate complaint point. But it is evident that the landlord was aware of the resident’s reports about squirrels prior to 10 February 2023, despite the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response suggesting it was not. We would expect a landlord to ensure early action was taken if there was any indication that pests may not be solely within a resident’s own property or could be caused by disrepair.
  5. The landlord contacted its pest control contractor to obtain a quotation for 2 squirrel treatments on 10 February 2023. It then approved and raised a purchase order over the course of the next 11 working days. Although the landlord’s pest policy does not specify an expected timescale for arranging pest control works, the landlord recognised in the stage 1 complaint response, that it could have instructed this work in a timelier manner, had it not been for staff absence. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for failings it itself had identified.
  6. The landlord’s repairs operative inspected the property on 14 February 2023, as it had previously committed. The landlord’s operative noted hearing squirrels in the void above the kitchen ceiling and recommended pest control be carried out, before blocking up the likely point of entry, which was an uncovered external vent. This was a reasonable course of action in relation to any external points of entry.
  7. It is unclear from the available evidence, how big the hole in the kitchen ceilingwas at the time of this inspection. The resident has provided photographs of the hole growing in size over the passage of time. However, these photographs are undated. But there has been no suggestion thatthe squirrels were physically accessing the property at this stage, or at any later point. It is understandable nonetheless, that the resident may have been worried that they could. The landlord could have considered temporarily covering theholeat the time of the appointment, to prevent the hole from getting any bigger and to offer the resident some reassurance.
  8. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 20 February 2023 to arrange access to their garden, so it could address the uncovered external vent. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident concerning this, despite her contacting it on the same day for an update. This left the resident uncertain of the steps the landlord was taking.
  9. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property on 3 March 2023. But was unable to gain access, to carry out an internal inspection. As we have not seen its contractor’s contact notes, we do not know if the resident had been given prior notice of this appointment. However, the landlord’s contractor was able access the neighbour’s garden, so it was able to view the likely external point of entry, which it agreed was the vent.
  10. According to the pest report, the landlord’s contractor carried out a risk assessment, which identified no potential risks or hazards at the time of the inspection. We note that no squirrel treatment was applied. It was positive that its contractor committed to contacting the resident to arrange an internal inspection of the property, so necessary measures could be taken. In the meantime, it recommended that the landlord replace the external vent, which the landlord had already committed to do. There was no suggestion that the landlord should delay from doing this, pending further internal investigation.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord repeatedly between 8 March 2023 and 14 March 2023 seeking updates. The landlord’s pest contractor contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 to arrange an internal inspection, which was subsequently scheduled for 23 March 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 March 2023 explaining that it had chased its planning team for an update concerning the repairs.
  12. The resident told the landlord the following day that the situation had worsened. She explained that she had sealed up the kitchen door with plastic bags after seeing large blue bottles in the kitchen. She suggested this may indicate that something had died. She told the landlord on 20 March 2023 that she was having to rely on friends and family for food, as she was unable to use the kitchen as it was a health hazard. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use the kitchen will be considered later, as a separate complaint point.
  13. The landlord’s pest contractor attended the property on 23 March 2023 as it had committed, to carry out an internal inspection. The pest report rates the infestation as “low” and confirmed that there were no identifiable hazards or risks. We note that no pest control treatment was put down, which suggests its pest control contractor did not consider this was necessary. It is unclear if the landlord’s contractor shared this information with the resident at the time, which may have allayed her concerns. The landlord’s contractor did recommend that the landlord carry out pest proofing work in the kitchen and to the external vent, and repair any damage caused to the property.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord the following day, asking it to arrange the pest proofing works that had been recommended by its pest control contractor. The resident reminded the landlord that it would need to coordinate any repairs with her neighbour. She also stressed that the external hole needed to be sealed up before any repairs were carried out within the property. The landlord raised a job for this on same day, for 13 April 2023. This again was within the landlord’s expected response timescales.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 noting that its repairs team had arranged to block and repair holes on 13 April 2023. But asked what the landlord was going to do to remove the squirrels. The resident emailed the landlord the next day, confirming that her carpenter had covered the holes in the kitchen ceiling so the squirrels could not enter the property. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s own actions removed the potential risk of squirrels entering the property. But we were unable to verify from the available evidence, that the landlord directly addressed the resident’s query about removing the squirrels, which left her unclear of its intentions.
  16. The landlord’s operative attended on 13 April 2023 as it had committed. According to the landlord’s notes, all holes were closed up, except for the external vent because the resident said pest control should attend first.It is unclear if this course of action was necessary, as this had not been suggested by the landlord’s pest control contractor.
  17. The landlord said in the stage 2 complaint response, that it was of the understanding, that following its attendance on 13 April 2023 the resident would book an appointment with its pest control contractor and then contact its repairs team to arrange for the vent to be closed. However, we have seen no evidence to suggest this was expressly agreed with the resident. The landlord’s complaint response also suggests that there were no further reports about pests at the property after 13 April 2023. But the evidence shows the resident continued to raise concerns about unresolved issues with squirrels and made reference to the external vent needing to be sealed. This was mentioned by the resident on 15 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 for example.
  18. However, the landlord did accept, during its own complaint investigation, that it ought to have checked that the pest problem had been resolved after it issued the stage 1 complaint response. And said that in future, it would ensure that any follow-up pest work was booked in by its staff and not left for residents to take forward. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failings and was learning from complaint outcomes.
  19. The landlord told the resident on 6 June 2023 that it would arrange for its Neighbourhood Response Officer to make an appointment to assess the sealing of the kitchen. And committed to arranging another attendance by its pest control contractor. This shows that the landlord was being supportive and was endeavouring to resolve the matter for the resident.
  20. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Response Officer attended the property on 13 June 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any minutes or inspection records from this meeting. This was unhelpful and restricted our ability to fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s next steps.
  21. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property again on 14 June 2023 as the landlord had committed. It was unclear from the pest report if there was still a squirrel infestation, as this data field had been left blank. But we were able conclude from the report, that there were no immediate hazards or risks to the resident were identified. But it is likely that the building remained vulnerable to reinfestation while the external proofing works were outstanding. The landlord’s pest control contractor recommended that the landlord complete the external proofing works, as it had previously mentioned.
  22. The landlord raised a job on 26 June 2023 to fit a new external vent. It then scheduled an appointment with the neighbour for 29 June 2023 who agreed to provide access. It was unfortunate that the landlord’s operative fell ill and could not keep this appointment. The landlord accepted at stage 2, that it ought to have contacted the resident to advise her that the job would be cancelled. The landlord offered an apology and £15 compensation in recognition of this failing, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also said that in future, it would ensure that customers were always notified if a repair booking needed to be cancelled. This was encouraging and is evidence of learning.
  23. The landlord’s records show that a job to repair the external vent was scheduled for 24 July 2023, although the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response suggests this was scheduled for 27 July 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that this job could not be completed because it had not given notice to the neighbour that access was required. This was poor planning on the landlord’s behalf and added further avoidable delay in completing the repair.
  24. The landlord rebooked the vent repair with the neighbour for 14 September 2023. It is unclear why this appointment could not be facilitated in a timelier manner. It was unfortunate that this appointment had to rebooked for 26 September 2023 after it experienced issues securing access. We have not been able to verify exactly when the vent was repaired. The job notes state that the job was completed on 26 September 2023 but the resident told us the job was not completed until 19 October 2023. While this difference in position is a concern, we were encouraged to hear there had been no further issues with squirrels since the vent was repaired.
  25. The landlord completed the internal remedial works and the making good of the kitchen ceiling on 12 December 2023. The resident told us that she was not particularly happy with the quality of the work but did not raise this with the landlord at the time. This denied the landlord the opportunity to carry out an assessment and put the job right if considered this was appropriate. Ultimately, the resident paid someone to bring the repair up to the standard she was wanted, which was her choice.
  26. It is not in dispute that there was a lack of ownership and coordination over the case, which likely contributed to delays in the landlord carrying out identified pest proofing works and completing remedial repairs. It was positive that the landlord identified this as an issue itself in the final stage 2 complaint response, for which it apologised and offered compensation.
  27. The landlord tried to put things right during its own internal complaint investigation by apologising for the failings it had identified, by making a combined offer of compensation in respect of those failings, by demonstrating that it had learned from complaint outcomes, and by making a commitment of action to repair the vent and complete remedial repairs within the kitchen on 27 July 2023. However, as previously referenced, this work was not completed until several months later (paragraph 35 and 36, refers).
  28. It was unhelpful that the landlord did not provide a full breakdown of the compensation it offered in relation to each failing it identified. But we consider the total offer of compensation made by the landlord during its own complaint investigation, was within the compensation range we would have awarded where there was evidence of maladministration. However, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress because the landlord did not complete the pest proofing and remedial repairs when it said it would. This resulted in continued distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  29. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a pest control problem and its handling of pest proofing and remedial repairs.
  30. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to complete the pest proofing and remedial works within the timeframe it committed to at stage 2. This is in addition to the compensation the landlord offered during its own complaint investigation.
  31. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where a landlord has made an offer of action and compensation, but this does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use the kitchen.

  1. The resident told the landlord 5 times between 6 February 2023 and 15 May 2023, that the kitchen was unusable. The resident:

a.     First reported being unable to use the kitchen during a webchat on 6 February 2023. The resident said she could not use the kitchen because the noise of the squirrels moving about the void above the kitchen ceiling was so disturbing.

b.     Stated during a phone call with the landlord on 22 February 2023 that she was unable to use the kitchen due to squirrels gnawing through the ceiling.

c.      Explained in an email on 20 March 2023 that she now had blue bottles in the kitchen, so had been forced to seal up the kitchen door to prevent the flies invading the rest of the property. The resident said she had been forced to rely on the kindness of friends and neighbours for food as she was unable to use the kitchen.

d.     Told the landlord in the stage 2 complaint on 5 April 2023, that she was still relying on the kindness of others for food because she was unable to use the kitchen to cook. She said she was unable to sleep and was mentally and physically exhausted by the whole ordeal. She suggested that the landlord had shown little regard for her as a tenant and had minimised the health risks the situation posed.

e.     Emailed the landlord on 15 May 2023 reporting that she continued to live in a property without a useable kitchen due to the ongoing health hazard.

  1. There is no evidence that the landlord directly addressed the resident’s reports that the kitchen was unusable, until it issued the stage 2 complaint response on 10 July 2023. This was unreasonable and is likely to contributed to the resident’s evident distress.
  2. The landlord concluded in the stage 2 complaint response, that the kitchen had been usable. It said it was sorry that the resident thought this was not the case, and that she had not used the kitchen for a period of time. It based this decision on a survey carried out by its pest control contractor on 14 June 2023, which identified no pest activity or health hazards that would have prevented the resident from using the kitchen. Although not expressly referenced in the stage 2 complaint response, there were also no health hazards identified when its pest control contractor inspected the property on 23 March 2023. And any risk that squirrels may enter the property was abated on 24 March 2023, after she arranged for her own carpenter to block up the hole in the kitchen ceiling.
  3. But ultimately, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns that she could not use the kitchen when she first contacted it and so missed opportunity to offer reassurance at the earliest point. The landlord missed several further opportunities to address the resident’s concerns about health and safety after this, resulting in avoidable distress for the resident over an extended period.
  4. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use the kitchen. This is because the landlord’s inaction adversely affected the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact of its inaction on the resident, and it missed opportunity to put things right.
  5. As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £200, which recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns about the usability of the kitchen.
  6. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time, but there may be no permanent impact.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerns about the landlord’s communications

  1. The landlord identified a number of failings during its own complaint investigation related to its communication with the resident, which we also identified during our investigation. For example:

a.     The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and appointments.

b.     The landlord left a voice mail for the resident, without leaving any contact details.

c.      The landlord did not always respond to the resident’s contact in a timely manner.

d.     There was a lack of communication with the resident after the landlord’s Neighbourhood Response Officer attended on 14 June 2023 to discuss her concerns.

  1. We note that the resident was predominately communicating with the landlord’s customer service team in the early stages of this complaint. The resident was repeatedly told that her queries had been passed onto the relevant service area, who would contact her directly. But there is limited evidence of the service area contacting the resident in response. This left the resident unclear of its intentions and increasingly frustrated.
  2. While there was some improvement in the landlord’s communications after the resident raised the formal complaint, the resident was still having to chase the landlord for updates. It may have helped if the landlord had put a communications plan in place as part of its complaint resolution, having recognised inadequacies in its earlier communications, and accepting that the resident had expended time and effort chasing for appointments and updates.
  3. The landlord tried to put things right during its own complaint investigation by apologising for its poor communication and by making an offer of compensation. The landlord also made a commitment, so that in future, residents contacting it about repeat issues would be contacted within 48 hours. This again shows the landlord was learning from complaint outcomes.
  4. We consider that the total offer of compensation made by the landlord during its own complaint investigation, which was inclusive of the compensation it awarded for poor communication, was within the compensation range we would have awarded where there was evidence of maladministration.
  5. As a result, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident concerns about the landlord’s communications.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord was operating an interim complaints policy at the time of the complaint. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord aimed to log and acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 10 working days and issue the full complaint response within 40 working days of its acknowledgment. We understand that the landlord has since brought its policy in the line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord states that it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2023.The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 February 2023, which was just outside the expected response timescale under its policy. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response 21 working days later, which was within the expected response timescale under its policy.
  3. It is unlikely that the resident was significantly disadvantaged by the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1. But it was positive that the landlord identified there was some delay and that it tried to put things right by apologising and offering £50 as redress. The landlord’s offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings the landlord identified and was in line with its compensation policy.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 5 April 2023. The landlord sent an initial stage 2 acknowledgement on 18 April 2023, explaining that it had passed the complaint to its customer solutions team who would be in contact. However, it did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 23 working days after the stage 2 response was received, which exceeded the expected response timescale under its policy. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response 41 working days after the formal acknowledgment, which was just outside the expected response timescale under its policy.
  5. Again, it was encouraging that the landlord recognised there had been delays in its complaint handling at stage 2 and tried to put things right by apologising and offering £50 as redress. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings the landlord identified and was in line with its compensation policy.
  6. The landlord provided an explanation as to how it had arrived at its combined offer of compensation which could have been clearer. Therefore, a recommendation is made later in respect of this.
  7. On balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the £100 compensation it previously offered the resident, in recognition of the failures it identified in its own complaint handling if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:

a.     Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a pest control problem and its handling of pest proofing and remedial repairs.

b.     Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use the kitchen.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident concerns about the landlord’s communications.

b.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
  2. The landlord must pay £815 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £400 if the landlord has already paid the compensation previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:

a.     £200 compensation, which was the combined offer of compensation made by the landlord at stage 1, for failures of service it identified during its own complaint investigation.

b.     £215 compensation, which was the combined offer of compensation made by the landlord at stage 2, for failures of service it identified during its own complaint investigation.

c.      £100 compensation in recognition of the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to complete the pest proofing within the timeframe the landlord committed to at stage 2.

d.     £100 compensation in recognition of the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to complete identified remedial works within the timeframe the landlord committed to at stage 2.

e.     £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns about the usability of the kitchen.

  1. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £100 compensation it previously offered the resident, in recognition of the failures it identified in its own complaint handling if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should consider changing the way it presents information concerning compensation awards, so it is clear to both the resident and the Ombudsman how such offers are calculated.