Southwark Council (202340597)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340597

Southwark Council

23 September 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a major works programme.
2. Response to some related welfare issues, including an allegation of discrimination.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She has lived at the property for over 10 years. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident is disabled and has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. Her complaint relates to cyclical improvement works at the block. The landlord’s upgrade programme included replacement kitchens and bathrooms. It appointed a contractor to complete the works.
From April 2023 onwards, the resident had several interactions with the appointed contractor. These related to the scope of the upgrade works and the contractor’s progress. A dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, there were separate altercations in June and July 2023. The resident and the contractor each raised related concerns to the landlord. It logged a complaint for the resident in July 2023. It did not respond to the complaint at this stage.
The landlord completed a separate investigation into the altercations. It updated the resident in September 2023. It said that its contractor was not willing to work in the property while she was present. The resident replied that it had not responded to her previous complaint. The contractor issued a stage 1 response the following month. It focused on a data protection issue. Subsequently, the landlord told the resident that its works programme was due to end soon.
In December 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was unable to leave the property to facilitate the works. She referenced her disability and raised concerns about discrimination. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in February 2024. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address some complaint handling issues. It did not identify any other failures at this point.
The resident updated the Ombudsman several times subsequently. In September 2025, she told us that the property’s upgrade works were still outstanding. She wanted the landlord to arrange these with a different provider. She also said the dispute had been stressful. She held the landlord responsible for some related health impacts.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint, the resident said that the landlord’s appointed contractor had breached data protection obligations. The landlord disputed this in subsequent complaint responses. The Ombudsman is not a specialist in data regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that specialises in upholding data protection and information rights. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the ICO. However, we can consider whether a landlord has responded to any data protection concerns accordingly.
During her stage 2 complaint, the resident alleged that the landlord had discriminated against her due to her disabilities. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot reach legal findings. This means we cannot establish if a landlord broke laws such as the Equality Act 2010. Instead, we can assess whether a landlord considered its legal duties and treated a resident fairly.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident mentioned some additional concerns to the Ombudsman. These included general repair issues and claimed health impacts. The landlord did not address these issues in its responses. In general, we can only investigate issues that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. As a result, any additional issues are out of scope for this report unless otherwise stated. The resident can bring other concerns to the Ombudsman after the landlord has issued a final response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a major works programme

On 14 April 2023 the contractor visited the resident at the property. This was to assess the required upgrade works. The contractor sent the landlord a related email 4 days later. It said that the resident had not approved its proposed design for a new kitchen. The email shows that she wanted the landlord to provide some additional cupboards in line with the property’s existing kitchen. It said, “Resident has mental health issues and says [that removing storage space] will trigger her”. The contractor asked the landlord how to proceed. From the evidence provided, it is unclear how the landlord responded at this point.
On 12 May 2023 the contractor emailed the landlord again. It said it had visited the property to assess the required bathroom works. It also said that the resident had requested a bigger bath for medical reasons. The contractor felt this was not feasible due to space restrictions. It asked the landlord to contact the resident about her request. It believed the discussion would be difficult as she was “clearly stressed” when it had spoken to her. The landlord promptly arranged for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess the bathroom. It was appropriate for it to obtain specialist advice about the resident’s medical needs.
An OT visited the property soon afterwards. The OT’s report is dated 18 May 2023. The report shows that the OT recommended some adjustments to the contractor’s proposed bathroom design. It also shows that the resident did not approve the OT’s specification. It said that she wanted a bigger bath, but this was not feasible. The report also said that the OT’s specification should not be changed without the OT’s approval. Ultimately, the landlord received similar advice about feasibility from 2 different sources (the contractor and the OT). It was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant specialists.
On 12 June 2023 there was an altercation between the resident and the landlord’s contractor. The contractor emailed the landlord about the incident several minutes later. It said the resident had visited its site office to discuss the property’s kitchen. It also said that she wanted the contractor to approve her preferred design. In addition, it said the resident felt that it had approved similar amendments to other kitchens in the block. From the evidence both parties provided, we have not seen any other information to support this assertion.
The contractor’s email shows it was concerned about the resident’s conduct. It said that she had been “extremely abusive” towards members of its staff. The email referenced foul language and actions which could be interpreted as threatening. The contractor told the landlord that it would not tolerate this type of behaviour. In summary, its other key points to the landlord were:
1. Its site manager had walked away from the altercation (to remove themself from the situation).
2. It had told the resident to contact the landlord about any concerns.
3. The resident had heard its operatives discussing some of her personal circumstances.
There is a gap in the evidence following the contractor’s email to the landlord. However, the resident says that she complained to the contractor on the same day (12 June 2023). We have not seen any direct evidence of a complaint at this point. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that the resident was unhappy. This is because she had overheard the contractor’s operatives talking about her personal relationship with the contractor’s company director. It is noted that the contractor referenced this matter in its report to the landlord. Since it was acting as the landlord’s agent, the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported a further altercation with the resident. At this point, she was liaising with the contractor about a neighbour’s home. This is because the neighbour was away and could not provide access for the upgrade works. In its report to the landlord, the contractor said:
1. The resident had visited the site office that day to discuss the neighbour’s home.
2. The resident showed “aggressive and threating behaviour” towards a member of its staff. This included “continuous shouting and verbal abuse”.
3. A similar incident had happened before. The contractor did not want the resident to attend its office or contact any of its staff going forwards.
4. The resident’s conduct was not acceptable. The landlord should escalate the situation as a matter of urgency.
The landlord has supplied a code of conduct for service providers. It details the standards which the landlord expects its external contractors to adhere to. It is noted that the document is effective from February 2025 onwards. However, we were unable to source a more relevant document (from the landlord’s website or our own records). We have therefore used the landlord’s document in our investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this approach is fair to both parties. It allows us to assess the landlord’s actions using a relevant benchmark.
The landlord’s code of conduct says that its agents are expected to minimise confrontation, avoid being drawn into arguments, and report any incidents to the landlord as soon as possible. A contractor can leave a work area for safety reasons if necessary. However, it must explain to the resident why it has done this. The evidence shows that the contractor’s actions were broadly consistent with the landlord’s expectations. For example, in April and May 2023 it promptly notified the landlord about potential sources of conflict. Subsequently, the contractor took steps to minimise conflict by reducing its level of contact with the resident. We find that these were reasonable steps in the circumstances.
The landlord began to investigate the altercations on the following day (20 July 2023). Records show this involved speaking to the relevant parties. They also show that the landlord considered matters from a risk-based perspective. These were reasonable steps. During internal correspondence on 21 July 2023, the landlord said that the resident had denied acting aggressively towards the contractor’s operatives. However, its comments suggest she had accepted using abusive language. The resident emailed the landlord on the same date. Her key points were:
1. The contractor’s staff were disrespectful and rude. They had tried to provoke the resident and she did not feel safe around them.
2. She was concerned about the contractor’s conduct and a data protection issue. She was waiting for a manager to contact her about these matters.
3. All works to the property should be placed on hold until the dispute with the contractor was resolved.
The landlord issued the resident a complaint acknowledgement on the same date. However, the evidence indicates that it subsequently paused its complaint investigation. It also indicates the landlord believed that it needed to investigate the altercations before it responded to the resident’s concerns. We have considered the landlord’s complaint handling in the relevant section below.
On 26 July 2023 the contractor emailed the landlord. It refused to carry out any works to the property. It referenced abusive and aggressive behaviour by the resident. Later that day, the landlord visited the resident at her home. The visit was completed by 2 of its managers. This was reasonable given the nature of the dispute. A neighbour was present to act as a witness for the resident. The evidence indicates that the resident apologised to the contractor soon afterwards. This suggests the landlord had tried to improve relations between the parties. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
The contractor updated the landlord on 2 August 2023. It said that similar conduct issues had occurred on 3 separate occasions. We have not seen evidence of a third altercation at its site office. However, there is evidence that the contractor had other challenging interactions with the resident during the period in question. For example, its comment may have referred to a difficult phone call which took place on 26 July 2023. Ultimately, the contractor believed that works to the property would result in further altercations. On that basis, it said it was unable to proceed with these. There is no indication that the landlord could have compelled the contractor to proceed against its wishes.
The landlord made another visit to the resident around 21 August 2023. We have not seen a first-hand account of the meeting. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the landlord promised to provide a written summary afterwards. Between 29 August and 5 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord around 5 times for this summary. It is reasonable to conclude that this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her. It is noted that the landlord missed a number of related deadlines during this period. This is concerning.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a detailed update to the resident. It said the property required complex upgrades that would take several weeks to complete. It also said these works had been placed on hold until further notice. This was on the basis its contractor lacked confidence that they could be carried out safely. Ultimately, the landlord said the works would not resume unless the resident made some concessions. Its other key points were:
1. To reduce the risk of conflict between the parties, the resident must agree to stay away from the property during the works (during the working day only).
2. The resident could appoint someone to facilitate the works on her behalf. Alternatively, she could leave a spare key with the contractor.
3. During the meeting in August 2023, the resident had told the landlord that she received mental health support from third-party agencies. However, she had been unwilling to discuss her personal circumstances in more detail.
4. If the resident was willing to provide more information about her circumstances, the landlord would consider whether it could offer any additional support.
5. The resident must not attend the contractor’s site office. The contractor was willing to communicate by phone. It would respond to queries about the works.
6. It had asked its contractor to respond to the resident’s previous concerns around the conduct of its staff. It would issue a response by 2 October 2023.
7. The resident should consider the landlord’s suggestions. It could arrange another meeting if required.
It took the landlord around 4 weeks to update the resident after the parties’ second meeting. This is based on the period between 21 August and 20 September 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unreasonable timeframe. The resident’s chasers indicate that she may have been worried about the situation. If it needed to take additional actions before it could provide an update, then the landlord should have set the resident’s expectations accordingly. Instead, it provided incorrect information around deadlines. Given the above, the landlord’s approach to the update was inadequate.
In its update, the landlord said the works could proceed if the resident agreed to stay away from the property while the contractor was there. It also said that it was willing to discuss additional support options with her. Ultimately, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the safety/welfare of all parties in the dispute. It believed that reducing the level of contact between them would minimise the risk of further altercations. It is noted this approach is consistent with the landlord’s current code of conduct. We find it was also reasonable in the circumstances. As mentioned, the landlord confirmed it would engage with the resident if she had any related concerns. This approach was also reasonable.
The resident replied on the same day (20 September 2023). She said that she was waiting for a response to her concerns about the conduct of the contractor’s operatives. She also said the landlord’s update was misleading. This was on the basis that she had raised concerns about the contractor’s operatives first (in June 2023). She asked the landlord to escalate her previous complaint. At this stage, there is no indication that she raised concerns about the requirement to stay away from the property during the contractor’s works.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor issued a stage 1 response. It addressed the resident’s concerns about a data protection breach. It referenced her family connection to its company director. It said the resident had previously told several members of its staff about this personal connection. It also said that she had not asked for the information to remain confidential. It apologised for any offence that may have been caused. It also said that it had reminded its relevant staff about expected standards of confidentiality and professionalism.
The response shows the contractor responded to the resident’s concerns around data protection. This was appropriate. However, the evidence points to some procedural issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. We have considered these in the relevant section below.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. It said that she had not responded to its suggested approach. It confirmed that its cyclical works programme was due to end soon. It asked the resident to reply by 1 December 2023 (3 working days later). This was to ensure the property received the planned kitchen and bathroom upgrades. The landlord said that, if the resident did not reply by the above date, it would assume that she did not want the works to proceed. Since the programme was ending, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident. Its related correspondence was clear.
The resident replied soon afterwards. She said the landlord’s correspondence was distressing and she was unable to read it in full. She referenced delays by the landlord. She felt it was trying to rush her and this was unfair. She said that she would respond to the landlord’s suggestion when she felt well enough to reply. Subsequently, the resident told the landlord that she did not want its relevant manager (who had issued both updates) to contact her again. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it escalated her complaint on 29 November 2023. Given her comments, this was a reasonable approach.
On 1 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that she wanted the works to proceed. She also said that she did not agree to the contractor’s terms. This was on the basis that she was unable to leave the property for prolonged periods. The resident referenced her disability and childcare responsibilities. She wanted the landlord to provide a plan for the works. She also said that the landlord’s investigation into the altercations was one-sided in favour of the contractor. The resident sent a further email on 3 December 2023. She said:
1. The landlord had made an impossible request (to stay away from the property). Its approach amounted to disability discrimination.
2. Among other issues, the landlord/its contractor had “told lies”, breached data protection obligations, and “physically intimidated” her.
3. She felt harassed and suicidal. The landlord should not contact her.
4. The landlord had not followed its own procedures. It should escalate her complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. It said that its upgrade programme had ended, but some homes were still outstanding. It said a final phase of works would address these. It also said it could include the property in this phase. The landlord acknowledged that the resident may have difficulty accommodating the contractor. However, it said the onus was on her to accept the contractor’s terms and make relevant arrangements. It gave the resident until 15 February 2024 to agree. The landlord’s other key points were:
1. It wanted the property’s outstanding works to proceed promptly.
2. It had a duty of care to the resident and the contractor’s operatives.
3. It had respite facilities at the site. These included a small kitchen, a sofa, a TV, and wifi.
4. The resident could have sole use of these facilities every day during the works.
5. It had not identified any failures in relation to the resident’s key concerns.
6. The resident could contact its data protection team with any related concerns (an email address was provided).
The landlord broadly reiterated its previous position at this stage. Significantly, it signposted the resident to respite facilities at the block. It also gave her additional time to accept the contractor’s proposal. This was a reasonable approach. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the above identified delay to its key update (eventually issued in September 2023). As a result, it did not address the related adverse impact to the resident. This was inadequate. Given the duration of the delay and the distress/inconvenience caused, it could have awarded some compensation to put things right for the resident. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
The resident approached the Ombudsman following the landlord’s response. She broadly reiterated her previous concerns at this point. She subsequently provided a further update in June 2024. She referenced “emotional abuse” by the landlord and requested compensation. She updated us again during a phone call in September 2025. The resident’s key points at this stage were:
1. Upgrade works to the property were still outstanding. The landlord should arrange these as a one-off project, even if its related costs would increase.
2. Since the contractor was no longer involved, the resident felt that she could stay at home while the works were completed.
3. The situation had been stressful. The resident held the landlord responsible for some related health impacts.
4. Her health conditions varied and were unpredictable. She had good days and bad days.
In summary, we find the contractor raised some significant safety concerns. The landlord tried to improve its relations with the resident. However, it had limited influence over the contractor in these circumstances. The evidence shows it considered the risk and tried to progress the works safely. In doing so, it offered solutions to the resident and attempted to engage with her concerns. These were reasonable steps. However, the landlord failed to update the resident promptly following an important meeting between the parties. It also missed some related deadlines. It subsequently overlooked the resident’s associated distress and inconvenience. Since it did not attempt to put things right, and the resident was adversely impacted by the failure, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. The landlord’s policy includes some specific guidance about award levels. Our calculation is consistent with the ‘some impact’ category in its guidance.

The landlord’s response to some related welfare issues, including an allegation of discrimination

The resident’s complaint involved a number of welfare aspects. We have referenced some of these in the previous section. We have taken care to ensure that any identified failures are not double counted in this report.

Vulnerability records

In April and May 2023 the landlord received information about the resident’s vulnerabilities. This included an OT’s report. In August 2023, the resident told the landlord that she could not attend a meeting at its offices. She said she could not travel far as she has fibromyalgia. It is noted the landlord promptly agreed to meet her at the property instead. This was a reasonable approach.
During its update to the resident in September 2023, the landlord said that she had been unwilling to discuss her personal circumstances in detail. It also said it would consider any additional information that she provided. Later, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not have a formal record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Subsequently, it made a similar comment in its case evidence to the Ombudsman. Specifically, it said that there was a lack of vulnerability records for the resident in some of its key systems. This is concerning given the information it received between April and August 2023.
In September 2025, the resident told us that (she felt) the landlord should have been aware of her vulnerabilities during the period in question. It is noted that there is some evidence to support this assertion. The above suggests that the landlord missed opportunities to identify/clarify and record relevant information. This was inadequate. In mitigation, the landlord also gave the resident a clear opportunity to provide further details. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show that she was adversely impacted by the landlord’s record keeping issues.

Response to key welfare issues

On 3 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that she felt it had discriminated against her. This was based on her disabilities. It is understood that she was referring to the contractor’s requirement to leave the property. The resident also said that she felt suicidal and unable to sleep. These were serious issues and the landlord should have responded to these accordingly.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had contacted the resident on 8 December 2023. It also said it had referred her to relevant support agencies. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Based on the period between 3 and 8 December 2023, it took the landlord around 5 working days to respond to the suicidal feelings that the resident was experiencing. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the Ombudsman’s opinion. In mitigation, the resident had previously told the landlord that she received mental health support from relevant agencies. This shows support was available to her.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination in its stage 2 response. It said it had not found any evidence to support her assertion. It was appropriate for the landlord to address this matter through its formal complaints process. We have checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s related concerns. It is noted that, based on the contractor’s requirement to leave the property, she may have been treated differently from other residents in the block.
However, there is no indication that the landlord failed to take its legal duties (under the Equality Act 2010 for example) into account. Similarly, there is no evidence that it failed to follow any relevant policies or procedures. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that it was trying to balance the resident’s welfare needs with those of its contractor. It is reasonable to conclude this put the landlord in a difficult position. As mentioned, it offered the resident sole use of its onsite respite area. This suggests it was sensitive to her welfare requirements. There is no indication that it overlooked any alternative suggestions from the resident. Ultimately, there is no evidence of a related failure on the landlord’s part.

Summary

The evidence points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping around vulnerabilities. Similarly, it shows the landlord did not react swiftly when the resident raised a significant welfare issue (involving a risk of serious self harm). However, it also shows there were mitigating circumstances that limited the adverse impact to the resident. For example, she already had access to welfare support from relevant agencies. In the circumstances, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint issue.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident felt the landlord (or its contractor) should have logged a formal complaint for her in June 2023. This was largely based on her data protection concerns. The landlord’s complaints policy defines complaints as “Any expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response”. As indicated, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord failed to respond to a formal complaint at this time. However, there is information which suggests it could have reasonably been more proactive.
This is because the contractor had swiftly told the landlord about the alleged data breach. If it was unsure how to proceed, the landlord could have asked the resident how she wanted it to address the matter. Similarly, it could have signposted her to its specialist data protection team. These would have been reasonable steps. There is no indication the landlord took any similar measures at this stage. This was unreasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion.
It is understood that potential data breaches should typically be addressed as swiftly as possible. This is to minimise the risk of further breaches. In this case, the landlord is unable to show that it took the alleged data breach seriously when it first occurred. It could have done this by promptly raising a complaint. The resident’s subsequent correspondence shows the matter was distressing for her.
On 21 July 2023 the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction to the landlord. The landlord logged a formal complaint on the same day. It also issued the resident an acknowledgement. Its relevant complaints policy says it should respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1. However, it took the landlord until 2 October 2023 to issue a stage 1 response via its contractor. This was around 10 weeks later. The landlord did not adhere to its policy timescale. This was inadequate. The parties’ correspondence shows the resident’s concerns were important to her. It is likely the delay was distressing.
The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction again on 28 November 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it decided to escalate her complaint on the following day. However, there is no indication that it notified the resident about its decision at this point. This is concerning. It is noted that the resident subsequently asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 December 2023. She also asked the landlord not to contact her as she “[felt harassed]”. It is noted the landlord issued the resident multiple updates subsequently.
The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 4.10 says, “Landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even if there is no new … information to provide”. By issuing regular updates to the resident, the landlord complied with the Code.
However, during this period, the landlord issued the resident at least 3 different response deadlines. It subsequently failed to adhere to these. For example, it initially said that it would issue a stage 2 response by 9 January 2024. It then failed to do this. The parties’ related correspondence shows the landlord’s delays and missed deadlines added to the resident’s overall distress.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 February 2024. This was around 11 weeks after it had decided to escalate the complaint. Its complaints policy says it should respond to complaints within 25 working days at stage 2. Overall, the evidence points to combined delays (across both complaint stages) of around 13 weeks in total. This was inadequate complaint handling.
In its response, the landlord rightly accepted that there were delays and failures at each stage of its complaints process. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address these. Given what went wrong, it was reasonable to compensate the resident. The landlord applied a reasonable category from its compensation policy. However, the evidence indicates that it did not recognise the full extent of its failures or the corresponding impact to the resident. Specifically, it did not address its unreasonable handling in June 2023. Since it has addressed a significant part of the handling issues at stage 1, which has prevented a more severe finding, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. Our calculation is consistent with the ‘some impact’ category in its guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a major works programme.
2. Service failure in respect of its response to some related welfare issues.
3. Service failure in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £300 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified problems with its response to some related welfare issues.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified (additional) issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. £100 which the landlord previously awarded the resident for complaint handling failures during its complaints process. The landlord should deduct this amount if it has already paid the resident.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to update the resident about its position on the outstanding upgrade works. For efficiency, it could combine this update with the apology. In any case, it must update the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to ensure that its key systems accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before it updates these, it may need to contact the resident to gather the relevant details. In any case, it must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. This correspondence must reflect (but is not limited to) the findings in paragraph 46 above.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to contact the resident about her more recent concerns. This is to ensure that they are being addressed accordingly. During this contact, it could signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. This is so she can pursue a claim for health impacts if she wants to.