Watford Community Housing Trust (202428513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428513

Watford Community Housing Trust

15 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about disruption caused by major works and her request to be moved.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

1.         The resident has an assured 5-year fixed term tenancy. The landlord is a Housing Association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 5th floor of a muti-occupied residential building, which was over 11 metres in height. The resident lives at the property with her partner, and 2 dependent children.

2.         The landlord’s records show that it was aware that one of the resident’s children had “special health requirements” from as early as June 2023. The resident provided the landlord with medical evidence in October 2023 indicating that her child was neurodivergent, had learning difficulties, and a diagnosed medical condition, requiring urgent treatment at a hospital at short notice when unwell.

3.         The landlord notified all residents on 4 May 2023 of its intention to carry out extensive major works to its properties to improve the thermal efficiency. The landlord said it was expecting the works to be delivered between September 2023 and September 2025. However, it would be on site before this carrying out feasibility studies and drilling test holes.

4.         The resident asked the landlord in June 2023 if it would move her family into alternative accommodation while it carried out the major works because of her child’s medical needs. The landlord said it would consider the resident’s request once the full nature of the major works was understood and it had a confirmed start date.

5.         The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 24 September 2023 that the landlord had not contacted her about moving. The landlord recorded the resident’s dissatisfaction as a “grumble”.

6.         The landlord raised a works order in December 2023 for its contractor to repair the front door, after identifying the door frame was beyond repair and “violates fire regs”.

7.         The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on or around 15 February 2024 about inadequacies in the landlord’s communications about the major works and its “decant process”. And about its handling of her request to be moved.

8.          The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2024. The landlord:

1. Apologised for its lack of communication regarding the major works and provided an update. It clarified there was no requirement to move any of its residents, due to the nature of the works.
2. Apologised for its lack of communication regarding its decant process and for its delay in progressing her managed move request. It noted it’s housing request panel had considered her request to move on 21 February 2024 but this was rejected.
3. Acknowledged the resident felt it initially misadvised her about its decant process. It said it was unclear what information she was given but for clarity, set out the circumstances under which it would usually consider moving a resident.
4. Told the resident that she should approach the local authority rehousing team if she believed the property was no longer suitable for her child’s medical needs.

9.         The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint on 10 September 2024 about its handling of repairs to the front door, fire safety, poor communication, and its failure to consider the impact of the major works on her child. She escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 September 2024 when the landlord did not meet all of the commitments it gave in the stage 1 complaint response. The resident said the landlord should move her and her family to somewhere more suitable.

10.     The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2024 and the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024. In summary, the landlord:

1. Accepted there had been a lack of communication concerning the major works and repairs to the front door.
2. Apologised for its delay in repairing the front door.
3. Offered reassurance concerning its approach to fire safety.
4. Noted that it had considered the resident’s request for a move as part of a previous complaint. And that its housing team had given advice on maximising her options for rehousing. But said she should let it know if there was any change to her household circumstances.
5. Made several commitments for action, including:
   1. To replace the front door and to keep in regular contact with the resident until the job was complete.
   2. To issue the resident with a copy of its new fire safety guidance.
   3. To issue monthly newsletters concerning the major works.
   4. To contact the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss her personal concerns about the major works.
   5. To communicate any future changes to its car park arrangements and try to minimise disruption at evenings and weekends.
   6. To appoint a single point of contact to address any future building safety concerns.
6. Offered £200 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. This comprised:
   1. £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident, by not replacing the front door within the expected timescale set out in its repairs policy.
   2. £100 compensation to recognise its poor communication relating to the major works.
7. Explained some of the learning it had taken from the complaint and how this would translate into service improvement.

11.      The resident brought her complaint to us in January 2025. The resident said she did not feel the property was fire safe and remained concerned about the ongoing impact of the major works on her child. She said the landlord should move her family and pay more compensation.

12.     The resident told us on 9 July 2025 that landlord had carried out some major works to date. But it did not have approval to progress the remainder of the works, which she understood would take some considerable months to complete. The resident said she remained concerned about the impact upon her child from the noise of the works when they resumed and about the risk presented to her child from heavy machinery manoeuvring in the carpark.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door

13.      The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 made it a legal requirement from January 2023 for landlords of muti-occupied residential buildings over 11 metres in height, to carry out annual checks of all flat entrance doors that lead onto a building’s common parts on a “best endeavour” basis.

14.      The Home Office ‘Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022: A simple guide to fire doors for responsible persons’, states that “there should be no damage to, or defects in, the door, door frame, or the securing wall that might affect the ability to resist the spread of fire or smoke”.

15.     The landlord’s contractor attempted to inspect all flat entrances doors within the building on 25 September 2023 in line with the Fire Safety Regulations. There is no photograph or any comments on the final report related to the property, which suggests access was not achieved.

16.      But the landlord’s Fire Officer was able to inspect the front door during its annual fire risk assessment on 12 December 2023. The resident has suggested its Fire Officer actually inspected the front door sometime during November 2023. But a photograph we have seen, taken by its Fire Officer on the day of the inspection, is date stamped 12 December 2023. The Fire Officer noted that the door frame was “beyond repair and violates fire regs”.

17.      The landlord raised a works order in a timely manner on 12 December 2023, for its fire door contractor to carry out remedial works. It is unclear why this job was given a target completion date of 16 January 2024 (22 working days), when the landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord should complete all repairs within 20 working days.

18.      The landlord’s contractor attended on 7 February 2024 to repair the door, which was 16 working days after the target completion date. This was inappropriate, given the landlord had itself identified, the door breached fire regulations in its current condition. The resident told us the landlord’s contractor confirmed to her on the day of the inspection, that the front door needed to be replaced.

19.      The landlord’s job notes indicate that it contacted the resident on 27 February 2024 to arrange a repairs appointment. The resident said she would call the landlord back once she had confirmed a date for access. We have seen no evidence that the resident called the landlord to arrange an appointment. But the resident told us she chased the landlord numerous times between February 2024 and September 2024 about the status of the repair and it never got back to her.

20.      The landlord’s records are silent between 27 February 2024 and 10 September 2024 when the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. So, we cannot conclude the landlord took any steps to progress the repair and suggests an inadequate level of oversight over the job and its contractor. This was inappropriate given any defects with the door frame were likely to affect the performance of the front door to some extent, in the event of a fire. It would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the repair to have been progressed in a timely manner.

21.      The landlord made enquiries with its contractor on 11 September 2024 concerning the status of the job. Its contractor confirmed that it had measured the door externally and had already ordered a new door from its supplier. Its contractor anticipated this would arrive at the end of September 2024 in time for the door to be installed during the first week of October 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided to it by its contractor about the status of the repair. It was positive the landlord updated the resident following this, so she was clear on how the matter would be resolved.

22.      The landlord accepted in the stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2024 that appropriate steps for remediation had not been followed and that it had not repaired the front door within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This shows the landlord was taking responsibility for its inaction. It tried to put things right by apologising for the delay and by making a timely commitment of action. Specifically, that its contractor would contact the resident by 30 September 2024 to arrange an appointment to install the front door, which it said would happen during the first week of October 2024.

23.        But the landlord did not contact the resident until 2 October 2024 to schedule in the work, which was 2 days after the date it had committed. The landlord agreed a later installation date than it had intended due to the resident’s availability. However, this was beyond the landlord’s control.

24.      The landlord’s contractor and landlord’s Fire Officer attended the property on 9 October 2024 to install the new front door. But upon arrival found that its supplier had sent the wrong door. We accept that that this was not ideal but again this was likely to have been outside the landlord’s control. It was positive that the landlord committed to obtaining the right door from its supplier in a timely manner and told the resident to be available on 11 October 2024 so this could be fitted.

25.       However, the door did not arrive from its supplier on 11 October 2024 as it expected, which created further inconvenience for the resident. It later materialised on 14 October 2024 that the front door had not actually been manufactured and that its supplier was unable to deliver the door until 24 October 2024. It is unclear whose who was responsible for this error but the landlord has since accepted, it ought to have carried out more checks.

26.      The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024 that it had failed to complete the repair within the timescale set out in its repairs policy. It tried to put things right by apologising and offering £100 compensation for the inconvenience the resident had been caused. And committed to keeping the resident informed until such time as the door was replaced. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation seems low, considering the length of time the repair was outstanding and the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident.

27.      The landlord’s contractor installed the door 24 October 2024 with follow on works being completed on 8 November 2024. The landlord post inspected the repair on 18 December 2024 to satisfy itself the job had been completed. The landlord noted the resident was happy with the job. But this was 372 days after the landlord first identified the front door breached fire safety regulations.

28.      The landlord told us in June 2025 that it had carried out a review of the case following closure, to identify any further learning. The landlord said that in future it would:

1. Ensure any issues identified during its annual door check by its repairs team, or by its housing team, were dealt with by a single team.
2. Ensure the status of repairs/replacement is monitored on a regular basis.
3. Ensure feedback was provided to residents where necessary.

29.      The landlord said it had also appointed a Building Safety Manager, so in the event of a door replacement, it could meet the resident to discuss their circumstances, outline the features in the building designed to keep them and their neighbours safe, and to assess whether any further measures were required.

30.      The measures the landlord put in place after closing the stage 2 complaint was encouraging and shows the landlord has tried to learn from complaint outcomes.

31.      Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door was inadequate. But the landlord did identify failings and tried to put things right by apologising, replacing the door, and offering compensation. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings we identified during our investigation.

32.      Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration had the landlord not acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right.

33.      To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door. This compensation is inclusive of the £100 compensation the landlord previously offered for the failings it identified during its own complaint investigation.

34.      Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range, where there have been failures but the landlord’s remedies do not quite reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety

35.      The resident first raised concerns about fire safety in the stage 1 complaint on 10 September 2024 within the context of the outstanding front door repair.

36.      The landlord’s Fire Officer contacted the resident the next day, which shows it was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved. The landlord’s Fire Officer accepted that it was unacceptable the front door had not yet been replaced. But reassured her that “her family were safe in her property”. And “while the door replacement was necessary due to frame issues, the property remained protected by the door” and also for the following reasons:

1. There was a sprinkler system in the property.
2. There was a functioning fire detection and alarm system in the property.
3. A sterile communal area policy was in place.
4. Should a fire occur in a neighbouring property, she would be protected by the fire / smoke protection afforded by her neighbour’s front entrance doors and her own.

37.      The measures described by the landlord would certainly have reduced the risk of fire and smoke spreading to or from the property, in the event of a fire. But there would have continued to be some fire safety risk, until such time as the landlord repaired the door frame or replaced the front door. Although this risk may have been minimal, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the risk to the resident.

38.      The landlord committed in the stage 1 complaint response, to issuing the resident with its new fire safety guidance by 27 September 2024, which explained how it protected its buildings and how residents could report fire safety concerns. This was positive and shows the landlord was trying to offer further reassurance to the resident. However, the landlord did not issue this guidance to the resident until 14 October 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow through on its commitment in a timely manner.

39.       However, the landlord did recognise in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024, that it had not sent the resident a copy of its new fire safety guidance by the date it had committed. It tried to put this right by apologising and resending her another copy of the fire safety guidance. The landlord said she should read the guidance, following which it would be happy to answer any additional questions the resident may have. This was fair.

40.      It was also positive that the landlord offered to appoint a single point of contact who could address any of the resident’s future building safety concerns.

41.      We note that the resident mentioned in the stage 2 complaint, that she felt the building was not safe for habitation by her family, due to the piles of household waste that were often dumped at the rear of the building. The landlord explained in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024 that its staff regularly inspected the communal areas to check that escape routes were clear of obstruction and were clear of flammable materials. This was in line with the landlord’s obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

42.      The landlord explained that it also actively investigated rubbish dumped on the estate and was working with partner agencies to tackle this issue. It stated that it already taken tenancy enforcement action against several residents during the year, in relation to dumped rubbish. And explained what residents should do if they spotted dumped rubbish and how to report this. The landlord’s response was in line with its approach to dumped rubbish, set out on its website.   

43.      Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and sought to reassure her. However, the landlord could have been more transparent about the fire safety risk presented by the defect in the door frame.

44.      Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.

45.       As a remedy, the landlord must apologise to the resident for not providing clarity about the risk presented by the defects in the door frame. The landlord must offer to meet the resident to discuss her continued concerns about fire safety and then act accordingly.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about disruption caused by major works and her request for to be moved

46.       According to landlord’s 2021 decant policy, the landlord may consider a decant where repairs are required to an individual property and the household cannot remain in situ. Or there is a serious housing management issue, where there is a threat to a person’s health and safety that requires them to move.

47.       The landlord has a suite of policies that came into operation in 2024 concerning moving. In summary:

1. Its access to housing policy states:
   1. The landlord’s housing request panel may consider a managed move to alternative accommodation, where there are exceptional circumstances, where the residents priority for a move warrant this. For example, the resident is the subject of hate crime, there is an urgent medical need, or there is a significant threat to a person’s safety or wellbeing.
   2. The landlord may consider a permanent move via an internal transfer to allow it to carry out major works or a temporary decant. An internal transfer allows residents to bid for alternative properties through the local authority, who then allocates the property based on an assessment of housing need.
2. Its home moves policy states the landlord might consider a temporary move where a resident is unable to remain safely in their property due to serious housing management issues or because of major works. The landlord might consider a permanent move where there are serious management issues and where its housing request panel has determined the current property is no longer suitable for the resident.

48.      The landlord notified all residents by letter on 4 May 2023 of its intention to carry out extensive major works to its properties to improve their thermal efficiency. This included replacing its district heating system, replacing windows and patio doors, upgrading the roof, as well as improving the ventilation and insulation. It confirmed that the works would be delivered between September 2023 and September 2025. But clarified it would be digging some trial holes for infrastructure works sooner than this, which could mean some parking spaces being temporarily unavailable. It offered to meet or arrange a phone call with any resident who had questions or concerns about the proposed works. We note that the landlord secured additional funding after this, to include upgrade to upgrade lighting and extend the existing sprinkler system to improve fire safety.

49.      The resident told us that she tried to contact the landlord several times between 5 May 2023 and 18 May 2023 to raise concerns about the major works and the impact this would have upon her child due to their particular medical and social needs.

50.      The resident told us the landlord acknowledged her communications on 18 May 2023. It is unclear if the landlord made any commitment of action. We note the resident emailed the landlord again on 19 May 2023 questioning the need for the major works and raising concern about the quality-of-life of its residents during the works. She also raised concern about the potential risk to children from heavy machinery driving through the car park and difficulties with parking.

51.      The landlord phoned the resident in a timely manner, to answer her questions and talk through her concerns. The landlord noted that it had “put the resident at ease” concerning the major works. But the resident wanted to be moved during the works because her child had “special health requirements”. It is unclear if the landlord had an understanding of what those needs were at this stage. However, it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to confirm its position on this in a timely manner. The resident was caused avoidable inconvenience on 20 June 2023 chasing the landlord for an outcome.

52.      The landlord made internal enquiries on 20 June 2023, about moving the resident via a “decant”. The landlord later told the resident that it would consider her request once the full nature of the major works was understood and it had a confirmed start date. This was fair, given the landlord could not determine the full impact of the works upon its residents until it had completed the feasibility studies and understood what was involved.

53.      The resident said she asked the landlord on 13 July 2023 if it could speed up the decant process, as her car had already been blocked in twice by lorries, which had delayed her child from attending medical appointments. The landlord did not respond.

54.      The resident said she started chasing the landlord again in September 2023 about her request to move. She emailed the landlord on 24 September 2023 asking it to raise a formal complaint. The resident expressed concern that its decant team had not contacted her yet to discuss a move. She explained she was already having issues with her car being blocked in and the works had not properly started yet. She highlighted the risk this presented to her child if they needed urgent medical treatment. The landlord told us it recorded the resident’s dissatisfaction as a “grumble”.

55.      The landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2023 about her request to move. The resident told the landlord that the property was no longer suitable due to her child’s medical needs. The resident said the landlord committed to getting a member of its staff to contact her to discuss the possibility of an “internal swap”. This is not terminology we have seen in any of the landlord’s policies. But it is reasonable to assume the landlord meant internal transfer.

56.      The landlord phoned the resident on 10 October 2023 to discuss the resident’s housing situation. The landlord committed to seeking a decision from its housing request panel about a move once the resident had provided medical evidence to support her request. This was required to aid the landlord in making an informed decision.

57.     The resident sent medical evidence to the landlord between 11 October 2023 and 23 October 2023. She also explained in more detail her reasons for wanting to move. She cited challenges living in high rise accommodation with a child who had learning difficulties and sensory issues. The stress, anxiety, and risks associated with not being able to safely get her child medical treatment in an emergency for their condition. She mentioned broken or restricted lifts, obstructions caused by dumped rubbish, and difficulties with cars being blocked in. The resident said the building works were a complicating factor but were not her main source of concern.

58.      The resident chased the landlord for an update on the internal move request on 14 November 2023 after an operative told her it had authorised its contractors to work until 8pm at night. The resident said this was unacceptable and suggested the landlord had failed to consider how the major works were impacting the welfare of her child. The landlord did not respond.

59.      It appears that an internal move request form was completed by the landlord in December 2023. But the landlord’s housing request panel did not consider this until February 2024. The landlord’s delay to progress the resident’s request for a move was unreasonable.

60.      The landlord’s housing request panel did not approve the move because it noted most of the major works were external. Its panel notes reflect that it considered the medical evidence the resident had provided. But concluded the evidence was not strong enough to demonstrate the proposed works would have an impact on health. It concluded there was no requirement to decant any of its residents. The landlord communicated its decision to the resident on 27 February 2024. We note the resident did not appeal the landlord’s decision, after the landlord explained this was her right.

61.      The landlord told the resident in the stage 1 complaint response that she might wish to approach the local authority for rehousing if she felt the property was no longer suitable for her family’s needs. This was a source of frustration for the resident, as she had already made the landlord aware that the local authority had not awarded her additional medical preference and had signposted her back to the landlord for resolution.

62.     The landlord failed to consider if any of the difficulties the resident had highlighted in her reasons for moving, could be addressed in some other way. For example (not an exhaustive list), was there more work to be done to ensure communal areas were kept free from obstructions. Were there any reasonable adjustments it could make or any other support it was able to offer the resident, to mitigate impact on the resident’s child. It is reasonable to assume the landlord had some controls in place to mitigate collisions with pedestrians, in line with its health and safety obligations. But was a further risk assessment required.

63.      The landlord does not dispute that there were delays in it progressing the resident’s request for a move and that its communication with the resident over this timeframe were inadequate. The landlord tried to put things right by apologising for this. However, given the level of distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident over this timeframe, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected some compensation.

64.      The landlord told us it reviewed its handling of the resident’s request for an internal transfer following closure of the stage 2 complaint. It explained this had resulted in it making some changes to the way it communicated with residents requesting transfers and stated it was planning additional staff training. This shows the landlord was trying to learn from complaint outcomes in this case, which was encouraging.

65.       It was apparent from the monthly newsletters sent by the landlord between June 2024 and September 2024 that access was going to be needed to carry out internal surveys within the property and in the future to carry out internal works. As a consequence, there was potential for increased levels of disruption to residents, regardless of the landlord’s best endeavours to keep levels of disruption to a minimum.

66.      The resident raised concern in the stage 1 complaint on 10 September 2024 about the increased levels of disruption being caused by contractors trying to gain access to the property and about disruption in the car park. The resident raised concerns again about the impact this would have on her child. The resident added that the property and block was no longer suitable for occupation by her child on account of their medical condition and learning difficulties.

67.      The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property in its stage 1 complaint response on 19 September 2024. But offered to contact the resident by 23 September 2024 to arrange a meeting to discuss her personal concerns about the major works. However, the landlord did not contact the resident within the timescale it had committed. This was unreasonable.

68.      The resident explained in the stage 2 complaint on 23 September 2024 that the landlord had rejected her request for a move previously because most of the works were external. But she pointed out that:

1. The external works could be clearly heard inside the property, which was distressing for her child due to their sensory difficulties.
2. Her child would not cope well when the landlord started on the internal works due to their neurodivergence.
3. Parking close to the property was a particular issue now it had taken some of the car park spaces out of use for the major works project. She reiterated this was problematic if she needed to get her child to hospital quickly, when unwell.
4. The car park was a dangerous place for her child due to their sensory difficulties. She explained that if her child had a “melt down” in the car park, they might run into the path of moving machinery and diggers.
5. Her family doctor had written previously in support of a move, as the property was no longer suitable. She suggested the only way to resolve the matter was to move her and her family.

69.      The landlord recognised in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024 that its communications regarding the major works had been inadequate. It tried to put this right, by apologising and making a goodwill gesture of £100. This compensation was in line with our remedies guidance, based on the evidence we have seen.

70.       It also apologised for its Project Officer not contacting the resident to discuss her personal concerns about the major works, as it previously committed. To put this right, it said its Surveying Team Manager would meet the resident on 25 October 2024 along with its Project Officer. It said the outcome from this meeting would allow it to shape any instructions to its contractor. It added that it would try to minimise disruption at evenings and weekends and would ensure to give residents advance notice of any future changes to car parking arrangements. This was positive and shows the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved and was open to making reasonable adjustments.

71.       The landlord commented that it had considered the resident’s request for an internal move before, as a part of a separate complaint. And said its housing team had advised her of the best steps to take to maximise her options for rehousing via the local authority waiting list. We recognise that the landlord felt there was insufficient evidence to support an internal move previously. But it was evident from the resident’s stage 2 complaint that she had become increasingly concerned about the suitability of the property for her child, with the major works gaining momentum.

72.      The impact of the noise and activity from the major works around the block was recognised by its Surveying Team Manager at its meeting with the resident on 25 October 2024. An internal record from its Surveying Team Manager indicates a commitment was made during that meeting, to look into the possibility of a moving the resident’s household on a temporary basis, when it completed the internal works. This was fair. However, it is understood the resident remained concerned about the ongoing disturbance from the broader works.

73.       It was encouraging therefore, that following the meeting, the landlord’s Surveying Team Manager recommended the landlord reconsider the resident’s request for a move. Its Surveying Team Manager remarked on “the clear challenges this family could face”. And said, “seeing the living situation first hand, made it clear that the prolonged nature of the works could be particularly challenging for her child”. The landlord did not act on this recommendation, which was unreasonable in the given circumstances.

74.      The resident told us on 9 July 2024 that the landlord had still made no firm commitment about moving her family into temporary accommodation when it carried out the internal works. It was evident that the resident remained concerned about the impact of the noise and major works on her child when the project resumes and the risk of her child being hit by heavy machinery in the carpark.

75.        In summary, our investigation identified:

1. The landlord considered the initial request for a decant and this was rejected.
2. The landlord’s communication was sporadic and failed to address all of the resident’s points.
3. The landlord made commitments to contact the resident and failed on those commitments.
4. The landlord did not carry out an appropriate assessment of the resident’s concerns including her requests for reasonable adjustments.
5. The landlord did eventually consider some of the concerns the resident raised and made some adjustments to the way they were working, to keep disruption down at weekends and evenings.
6. The landlord failed to signpost the resident for support required for her and her family.

76.      The landlord identified some failings itself during its own internal complaint investigation and made some attempt to put things right. But it did not identify all of its failings. It’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings we identified during our investigation.

77.       Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about disruption caused by major works and her request to be moved.

78.       As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay £350 compensation. This compensation recognises the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings we identified during our investigation. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance. This compensation is inclusive of the £100 compensation the landlord offered for poor communication.

The landlord’s complaint handling

79.      The landlord provided a partial copy of its 2023 customer complaints and feedback policy, showing its approach to complaint handling at stage 2. This states the landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and will issue the stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days.

80.      The landlord provided us with a complete copy of its customer complaints and feedback policy from June 2024. This stated that the landlord will log stage 1 complaints in 1 working day and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and will aim to issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days (but no more than 20 working days) from the date the reasons for the complaint are clear.

81.      Our Complaint Handling Code of Guidance (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting and individual resident or group of residents”.

82.      The resident emailed the landlord on 24 September 2023 to “raise a formal complaint” about the landlord’s inaction concerning her request to move. The landlord told us that it logged the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a “grumble” rather than as a stage 1 complaint. It said this was in line with its customer complaints and feedback policy, in operation at the time, which we have not seen. But it was evident that the resident’s communication met the hallmarks of a complaint and should have been logged as such. The landlord did not explain to the resident that it was not raising a stage 1 complaint, so she could challenge this. This would have been in line with the Code.

83.      The landlord apologising to the resident on 15 February 2024 for any confusion that had been caused in its handling of her previous dissatisfaction. And offered to raise a new stage 1 complaint to put things right, which the resident accepted.

84.      We were encouraged that the landlord’s more recent customer complaint and feedback policy does not reference having any informal complaint stages, which could make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to our services.

85.      The landlord managed the other stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its policy.

86.      The landlord has a goodwill gesture policy, which sets out the circumstances in which residents may be entitled to a goodwill payment or other financial compensation where the landlord has failed to deliver a satisfactory service. The landlord will consider awarding a payment for general inconvenience, which will be judged on a case-by-case basis. There is no mention of goodwill gestures being awarded on the basis of a full and final settlement.

87.      Yet when the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response, it said the goodwill payment was made in “full and final settlement”, “without accepting liability”. This implies that the resident had no further right of recourse if they accepted the payment. This was not within the spirit of the Code. However, we have seen no evidence to suggest this caused any detriment to the resident.

88.      The landlord’s more recent complaint responses show that it took learning from the resident’s complaints and committed to a course of action to achieve service improvement. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. As referenced earlier in this report, we were encouraged that the landlord carried out a further case review following closure of the stage 2 complaint, when it identified further learning. This demonstrates a positive complaint culture.

89.      In summary, there was some confusion over the management of the resident’s earlier expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord apologised for this and committed to a course of action to put things right. It managed the resident’s later complaint in line with its policy.

90.      Therefore, on balance the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

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

1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about disruption caused by major works and her request to be moved.

92.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

93.      The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.

94.      The landlord is ordered to pay £550 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £350, if the landlord has already paid the compensation it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:

1. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.
2. £350 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about disruption caused by major works and her request to be moved.

95.      The landlord must write to the resident, offering a meeting within the next 4 weeks to:

1. Discuss her continued concern about fire safety. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter, as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Discuss her continued concern about disruption from the major works and the impact this is having on her child. As a minimum, the landlord must:
   1. Explore with the resident, whether there is any additional support it is able to offer, or any special measures that may be taken, to mitigate the impact of the major works on the resident’s child when the major works resume.
   2. Confirm its position regarding a temporary move, when carrying out internal works.
   3. Consider the merits of submitting a new request to its housing request panel, for a permanent move.

96.      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.