City of Westminster Council (202444089)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444089

City of Westminster Council

5 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. Handling of repairs to the resident’s home.
2. Response to a request for aids and adaptations.
3. Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom lower ground floor maisonette. The resident has lived at the property since September 2023. She shares her home with her 3 children, including her disabled son.
Ahead of and following the start of her tenancy, the resident received support from the landlord’s move on coordinator. They acted as a single point of contact for her, providing help with removals and reporting repairs. The move on coordinator agreed that the landlord would help with the cost of floor covering for the property.
Due to her son’s disability, occupational therapy completed an assessment of the property on 12 October 2023. This recommended works to the bathroom, alongside general works to cover exposed pipework and radiators, to install safety gates on the stairs and lockable socket covers. It further suggested assessing the feasibility of adaptations to the internal stairs and works to the garden area.
The resident raised some early repairs needed, including reporting internal leaks. The landlord acted to carry these out. The landlord replaced the bathroom to the property. It agreed to install the resident’s own tiles as part of these works. It also completed works to move radiators, replace the cupboard doors in the hallway and fit extra kitchen units. In correspondence on 30 January 2024 the resident reported that the windows within the property did not open or close properly. She said that the cords to the sash windows were broken. She also reported other repairs that the landlord had not completed. These included incomplete kitchen drawers and that cupboard doors in the hallway were not closing properly. Further she confirmed that flooring to the kitchen, bathroom and stairs was still to be completed.
The landlord’s contractor completed an inspection of the property on 21 February 2024 and provided feedback on the outstanding issues, together with details of other items raised by the resident during the visit.
The resident wrote to the landlord once again on 23 May 2024. She highlighted that works remained outstanding as kitchen drawers were still incomplete and the leak in the bathroom had returned. She also said that she was unable to open any of the windows and that the stairs to the garden were unsafe. Further she said that she had now ordered flooring for the kitchen and bathroom and had attached invoices and quotes for authorisation.
The landlord raised works orders for the windows and doors in June 2024. Its contractor provided a quote to replace the sash cords and overhaul the windows. The landlord confirmed its approval in August 2024, with the works provisionally scheduled for 11 September 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 September 2024. In this she said that there were several outstanding repairs to her property, including the completion of adaptations for her son. She said that:
1. The windows in the property did not open.
2. They were unable to use the toilet properly.
3. She said that several people had attended her property but “not one repair had been completed” since she moved in. This was despite several emails and calls from the resident to chase these.
4. She was now outside her home as the toilet had flooded. This had caused a back surge of foul water causing a leak into the kitchen and sitting room. As a result, the family’s personal belongings were damaged.
5. The landlord should have completed the repairs that she had been reporting before she moved into the property.
6. It had not completed the adaptations needed for her son. This had led to him falling on the stairs.
7. The ongoing issues were causing her distress which had affected her own health and wellbeing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 September 2024. In this it said that it was dealing with the resident’s complaint about the occupational therapist and adaptations for her son under a separate complaint reference.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 September 2024. It set out that her complaint was about 3 issues – repairs outstanding when she moved into the property, the completion of promised adaptations and a flood to the bathroom caused by a back surge from the toilet. In its response it said that:
1. It had reviewed its repair records. It set out a list of works it had completed within her property.
2. It noted that she had reported further repairs on 26 June 2024. It could not, however, find a record that it had raised works orders for these and apologised.
3. This included her report that the windows in the property did not open. It had arranged for its area surveyor to carry out a condition survey on 17 September 2024.
4. It upheld this part of her complaint. It said it had failed to deliver a service within its published standards and there had been a delay in resolving the issues she had raised.
5. In respect of the adaptations for her son it had met with her on 4 July 2024. The occupational therapist had made recommendations for adaptations. It had recorded that she was unhappy with these recommendations and had declined the work in favor of seeking her own contractor to undertake works.
6. It had approved works to the rear garden. These were to level the paving and enclose the metal staircase leading down to it. It explained that it was preparing a schedule for these works. While it usually targeted completion within 90 days, this may take longer due to structural considerations.
7. It did not uphold this element of her complaint as it said that “every effort made to provide adaptations recommended by occupational therapy”.
8. It received the report of the toilet overflowing on 7 September 2024. It had raised an immediate repair order and offered her and her family temporary accommodation. Its contractor attended on 8 September 2024 at 12.08am to clear the blockage. It noted that the resident had declined the temporary accommodation offered. Its area surveyor had contacted her on 9 September 2024 to arrange an inspection and raise the necessary order for repairs and a deep clean. Its surveyor would capture all required repairs as part of the inspection on 17 September 2024.
9. It did not uphold this part of her complaint.
10. In recognition of its failure to “deliver a service to published service standards causing minimal impact”, it offered the resident £50 compensation.
The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection of the property on 17 September 2024, as set out as an outcome to its stage 1 complaint. It captured various repair issues. It noted that the sash windows looked in good condition and that they required adjustment to the weights and cords. Further it noted that the flooring to the kitchen and bathroom met its standards, noting there was nonslip vinyl fitted in the bathroom.
On the 14 October 2024 the landlord’s contractor provided a quote to replace the windows in each bedroom. It said that it had tried to repair the windows but could not get new weights and sashes to work.
On 13 November 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that she believed several critical issues remained. She gave feedback to the landlord on each of the repairs and items covered in its stage 1 reply. She set out what action she wanted the landlord to take. This was:
1. Immediate action to deal with the outstanding repairs. This included dealing with a leak behind the bathroom tiles, the installation of kitchen units and completion of external works.
2. For the promised adaptations for her son to be prioritised. She asked for it to provide extra funding to “ensure they are carried out to a high standard”.
3. A full inspection of the sewage leak and associated remedial works.
4. A review of the compensation offered as this did not reflect the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of her complaint on 18 November 2024. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 21 November 2024 further setting out her dissatisfaction and the issues that remained outstanding in her home. She attached to this added evidence to support her complaint in the form of a record of an occupational therapy visit to her home on 22 November 2023 and contact with the landlord’s move on coordinator who had supported her with her move to the property and the commitments made around flooring.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response from its chief executive. It set out a detailed response to the issues that the resident had raised about repairs, adaptations and the overall condition of the property. It apologised to her for the distress caused and aimed to reassure her that it took the issues raised seriously. It set out its response under specific headings and said:
1. Bathroom leak –it had renewed the bathroom to deal with a significant leak. It apologised that this issue appeared unresolved. It had arranged for an inspection, and it would contact her within the next 5 days to arrange this.
2. Tile damage –the tiles used in the bathroom were non-standard. The resident had selected these and it had agreed to fit these as a gesture of goodwill. It had told the resident that she was responsible for any re-tiling or repairs to the tiles. It said that if repairs were needed to the wall behind the tiles to resolve the leak it would ensure that it repaired this.
3. Shower pump –it had installed this at the request of the resident. The occupational therapist had not recommended this. Its repair fell outside its standard responsibilities, and it referred her to the manufacturer should she continue to experience problems.
4. Herringbone wooden flooring – it had provided the flooring as an added support measure in her move to permanent accommodation.
5. Property allocation – it understood her frustration that she had been offered a 3 bedroom property rather than a 4 bedroom property. It had made a direct offer of her current property to allow her to move out of temporary accommodation. The property was the most suitable to meet her needs that had been available at the time. It suggested that if her circumstances had changed, or if she felt that it had not adequately considered her sons medical needs, she could send in further medical evidence.
6. Bespoke cupboard doors – it had provided replacement doors to hallways cupboards. It had fitted these with the resident’s own handles. It offered to arrange an inspection of the doors if she believed that these were defective. It asked her to tell it when it would be convenient to do this.
7. Radiator relocation – it had moved radiators in the bedroom and kitchen at the request of the resident.
8. Exterior rendering and painting – it had carried out works to the exterior of the building “as part of an overall plan to improve the condition of the property”. It was unable to carry out further works to the exterior of the building without undertaking section 20 consultation with all residents. These works would then be part of a programme for the whole building.
9. Basement entrance door – it acknowledged that she felt that the door had not been properly overhauled and understood her frustration. It said that it took her concerns seriously.
10. Adaptations for her son – an occupational therapist had completed an inspection and made a referral to the landlord’s aids and adaptations team. It had produced a schedule of work, and it had arranged to carry these out. It understood that the resident had concerns about the priority given to this work and the adequacy of the proposed solution.
11. Work to the stairs – the proposal was to install a banister to the stairs. It understood that the resident had declined this on “aesthetic grounds”, wanting it to fit balusters instead. It said that it could go ahead with the approved works to install a banister with the resident’s agreement.
12. Electrical socket covers – the resident had not allowed its contractors to carry out this work. It asked the resident to contact it to agree a date for these works to go ahead.
13. Wooden barn door and safety gate – it had declined her request to fit a barn door to the kitchen. It had agreed to install a safety gate for her son. It was to install this on 26 November 2024. This was in line with the guidance provided by occupational therapy.
14. Garden adaptations – it would not carry out the proposal to level the garden and install rubberised flooring due to the cost. It would work with the resident to fit extra grab rails to help her son access the garden. It noted that the garden was overgrown and that repairs were needed to the retaining wall. It was arranging to carry out this work. Further it said that the occupational therapist’s recommendations acted as a guide to identifying essential adaptations. It prioritised essential works for her sons needs but there were limits to funding. It had to balance the needs of all residents.
15. The landlord set out its legal obligations under the housing act 1985 and the equality act 2010. It said that it had met these obligations. Further it said that it must act “within the framework of its policies, which prioritise functionality, safety and fairness”. It said that it was committed to moving forward with the occupational therapist’s recommendations and ensuring that the property met the required standards.
16. Its surveyor had tried to contact her on 6 January 2025 to arrange for an inspection of the property and it asked that she contact it directly to arrange this.
17. It offered a further £100 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing this matter.
The resident contacted this service on 2 February 2025. Having completed both stages of the landlord’s complaint process she wished to escalate her complaint further. She highlighted issues with outstanding repairs and her living conditions, together with the landlord’s failure to complete adaptations for her son. She said that there had been failures by the landlord which had impacted on the family’s health and wellbeing.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 21 February 2025 the resident raised 7 stage 1 complaints with the landlord. On 20 March 2025 the landlord recorded that it had agreed with the resident to undertake an independent review of the stage 2 it had completed in January 2025. This would incorporate the issues she had raised in her complaints on of 21 February 2025. The landlord would no longer provide individual response to these. On 10 April 2025 the landlord completed a home visit to discuss her concerns and complete an inspection of the property.
It provided its formal review response on 16 May 2025. In this it had considered the issues raised by the resident through her initial complaint and her correspondence of 21 February 2025. It set out that the issues raised were about outstanding repairs to her home and the condition of the property, the condition of the garden, adaptations for her son and delays and lack of action by the landlord. Further it considered its handling of her original complaint. It thanked the resident for meeting with it on 10 April 2025. In its reply, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that it had not followed up on the inspection of the property completed on 17 September 2024 and apologised for this. It provided a summary of the outstanding items that it had discussed with the resident on 10 April 2025. It included a table detailing the steps that it would now take to address each of the issues highlighted. This included specific repairs orders raised to be completed on dates in early May 2025.
2. Set out the background to it carrying out recommended aids and adaptations, together with the detail of the recommendations made. It also set out the timescale within which the landlord aimed to complete recommended adaptations. It confirmed that following a further visit on 15 April 2025 the resident had agreed to the installation of a handrail to the internal stairs.
3. Provided background to the proposed adaptations to the garden and the wider issues its feasibility assessment had found. It apologised that it had not raised these to its repairs service, which led to a delay in deciding the works needed. It had completed a structural survey on 15 April 2025. This had recommended that as a precaution it restrict access to the garden until it completed further works.
4. Concluded that it had not always carried out repairs promptly. It had failed to adequately address this through its complaint responses, and it apologised for this.
5. Said that it was satisfied that it had dealt with the request for aids and adaptations in line with its policy and government guidance.
6. Explained that it had reviewed the compensation offered. It said that its offer did not reflect the delays and other service failures she had experienced. In addition to the £150 previously offered it made an offer of £1600. It broke this down as:
  1. £750 for failure to progress repairs to the garden when these were deemed as not feasible as part of the occupational therapist’s assessment.
  2. £350 for the delay to 7 repairs identified in September 2024 but not progressed. This was in line with its compensation policy which allowed an award of up to £50 for delays to repairs.
  3. £250 for the resident’s time in raising these issues multiple times.
  4. £250 for its poor complaint handling.
In addition to writing to the resident, the landlord completed an internal complaint review on 29 May 2025. In this it set out what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and the actions it would take as a result.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord handling of the repairs to her home and those that were outstanding. In conversation with us she has specifically highlighted issues with the garden, the windows and the outstanding flooring.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After careful consideration, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to a request for aids and adaptations.
Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion … concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease”.
In her complaint to this Service, the resident has told us that the landlord has failed to complete necessary adaptations to her home. She has said that this has impacted her son’s ability to mobilise around the property. The aids and adaptations service is managed by the council, but not in its role as a landlord. Consequently, this Service cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint.
The resident could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as they can look at complaints about most council services (apart from matters relating to their responsibilities as social landlords). Therefore, they may be able to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Although this part of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, we have referred to the adaptations works in the report. There was an overlap in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to her home and the recommended adaptations.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us that the outstanding repairs and the need to pursue these with the landlord has affected her physical and mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
In assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs we have specifically drawn out the landlord’s action in relation to the flooring, the windows, and the garden. This is alongside a wider consideration of the landlord’s management of repairs.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s home

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
Under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and section 1(3) of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord is obliged to ensure that, when a tenancy commences, the property is “fit for human habitation”.
The landlord introduced a housing repairs policy in August 2024. This was not in place at the start of the resident’s tenancy. Prior to the introduction of this policy its tenant handbook included information about its obligations for repairs.
The tenant handbook section on repairs sets out the obligation of both the resident and the landlord to carry out repairs. It set out the landlord’s area of responsibility and gives examples. It said that the resident had responsibility for some minor repairs and maintenance to the property. It included a list of items this covered. Further, the resident had responsibility for decorating internally and flooring.
The handbook set out the targets within which the landlord will complete a repair. This has 4 categories. These are:
1. Immediate – to attend within 2 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – to be completed within 1-7 days.
3. Right to repairs – these are to be completed within 1-7 days. This is in line with legislation which sets out the repairs that fall within this category.
4. Non urgent or routine repairs – the landlord will complete these within up to 28 working days.
On accepting the property, the resident had a single point of contact within the landlord’s allocations team. This was to ensure a smooth transition for her to her new home. The officer provided support with removals, raising any repairs and ensuring that an occupational therapy assessment had been arranged to assess for adaptations needed for her son. In correspondence with the officer the resident said that the stairs, bathroom, and toilet needed to be assessed.
Correspondence ahead of the start of the resident’s tenancy showed that the landlord agreed to support the resident with the cost of flooring for the property. In correspondence on 23 August 2023 the resident asked, “if there was a maximum budget…”. In reply the landlord said once it had the quote for the flooring “it would review and confirm the support that it could provide”. The landlord did not agree which rooms it would cover the cost of flooring for. This is despite evidence that it had installed vinyl flooring to the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet while the property was empty. It would have been reasonable for it to agree in advance with the resident what flooring it would pay for and to have set a budget. This would have set the resident’s expectations of what the landlord was offering to help her with. That it did not do so has left the resident both disappointed and frustrated when it has subsequently refused to cover the cost of flooring to the kitchen, bathroom, toilet, stairs, and landing.
The landlord’s early correspondence with the resident reinforces her view that it would cover the cost of flooring to the whole property. It acknowledged that there would be a delay in her providing flooring to the bathroom, kitchen, and stairs while discussions were ongoing about the adaptations needed. We have noted that it had fitted vinyl flooring to the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen as part of its empty property standard. Its surveyor recorded the adequacy of this flooring as part of its inspection in September 2024. Having provided flooring to these areas, it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to cover the cost of further floor coverings. The landlord should however have made this distinction within its original agreement. To have done so would have effectively managed the resident’s expectations. That it did not do so was a failure.
Prior to moving to the property, the resident highlighted a concern about damp in the bathroom. The landlord raised an order for plumbing repairs on 11 September 2023 and attended on 12 September 2023. On 23 September 2023 she reported a leak into the living room. A surveyor visited the property on 27 September 2023 and found the source of the leak, together with recording other repairs needed. It completed repair works on 24 October 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the reported repairs and attended to them in a reasonable timeframe. However, the resident reported that the leak had returned on 6 November 2023. The landlord completed extensive repairs, replacing the bathroom to the property.
There is significant correspondence between the resident and landlord about a range of repairs. The occupational therapist completed an inspection on 16 October 2023 making recommendations for adaptations required together with proposals to review the feasibility of other repairs. There is overlap in the correspondence about repairs and aid and adaptations leading to a lack of clarity in ownership for the works undertaken. There was also a lack of clarity as to what had been agreed with the resident across the agencies involved.
On 30 January 2024 the resident sent a list of outstanding repairs, together with photographs to the officer supporting her. The landlord’s contractor carried out a visit on 21 February 2024 and as an outcome it captured the outstanding repairs and new issues raised by the resident. There is no evidence provided of the follow up action taken. This included the resident reports that windows did not open and that the draw fronts were missing in the kitchen. Given the range of repairs raised it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a schedule of the actions it would take. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord to provide the resident with clarity about when it would act on the issues that she had raised. There is also a lack of ownership with cross over between its housing team and the aids and adaptations team.
The landlord carried out work within the property which fell outside its responsive repair obligations. These, such as relocating radiators within the property, were referred to in its complaints responses as “gestures of goodwill”. There is however no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident when it carried out the works. It is therefore understandable that the resident was confused and frustrated by the landlord’s use of this term in its complaint responses.
Following her formal complaint the landlord arranged for its surveyor to complete an inspection of the property. The surveyor provided a report on 17 September 2024 in which it captured several repairs items. This included the missing kitchen drawer fronts and issues with the windows. It recorded that it when it had installed the kitchen draws it had been unable to match the fronts to the other kitchen units. It noted that it had agreed that it would arrange to provide the drawer fronts along with matching cupboard doors. There is no evidence that the landlord followed through on the items highlighted by its surveyor, or on the commitments made. There was a failure by the landlord to act on documented repairs.
The landlord did not effectively capture the breadth of repairs raised to the resident’s home, either directly by her through her written communication, or as an output of its surveyor’s inspections. This led to a failure to ensure that all repairs were completed within an appropriate timescale. There was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations of what works it would carry out and what sat outside its repairs commitments. This led to some frustration by the resident when the landlord referred to works it had carried out as gestures of goodwill when they have been presented to her as repair works to address her concerns.
The resident first raised concerns about the windows in the property in January 2024. Photographs provided by the resident show, in one window, a small section of the frame having separated from the glass leaving a gap. The inspection in February 2024 noted the issues with the windows. There is no evidence that the landlord raised a repair order for the windows until June 2024. Its contractors attended in October 2024 and carried out works to replace the cords and weights to the sash windows. It reported back to the landlord that it had been unable to get these running correctly and recommended replacement of the windows to each of the bedroom. It provided a quote for these works on 14 October 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to approve these works or arrange for a further inspection of the windows. It is noted that secondary glazing is fitted to the windows, however, there has been a significant delay in the landlord ensuring that the windows are functional.
Within the review of her complaint completed by the landlord in May 2025 it again addressed the issue of the windows. It advised that it will only replace windows that are beyond economical repair. An inspection had been carried out in April 2024 and further repairs recommended. Further it noted that major works were due to start later in the year, with the full scope of works still to be agreed. This would be looking at the condition of all windows. There was no timeframe provided to the resident for when the initial repairs and then the surveyor for major works will be completed. Given the length of time over which this issue has been outstanding for the resident the landlord should provide her with some timed commitments and ensure that these are managed through a single point of contact.
The works to the garden formed part of those recommended by occupational therapy. The resident raised her concerns about the safety of the stairs for her son accessing the garden. These works were not progressed as it found that more extensive works were needed that could not be carried out within the remit of aids and adaptations. There was a failure to ensure that these were followed up by the landlord’s repairs and maintenance service. Having completed a review of the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged for a structural survey to be completed in April 2025. This recommended, as a precaution, to restrict access to the area. Understandably this is a further frustration to the resident.
The landlord has told us that it has now it has completed a further technical survey. This has set out the works required. Given the scale of the work needed it is currently drawing up a scope of works and specification to enable it to externally tender the works. As these will take some months it has identified a named point of contact for the resident and will provide weekly updates.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home. There was a lack of timeliness in its handling of her repairs and a lack of oversight to ensure that all were completed appropriately. There was also a failure in its communication with the resident about what it had agreed to do and what fell outside of its day to day repair responsibilities.

Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and provide full responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Its policy sets out the outcome that its residents may expect from a complaint and defines these. These are: not upheld, partially upheld and upheld. It says that it will uphold a complaint where “the investigation found that the area complained about was responsible for a failure in service”. This may apply where it had not followed its policies or procedures. To resolve a complaint that it has upheld, its policy says that it will acknowledge and apologise where things have gone wrong. Further it will act where there has been a delay.
Its compensation policy says that it is based on the Ombudsman’s principles of good practice. Its aim is to provide a “consistent approach to remedying service failure and awarding compensation which is consistent and fair”.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides bands of compensation based on the perceived impact on the resident of its service failure. The ranges are:
1. Low impact – £50 to £100
2. Medium Impact – £100 to £600
3. High impact – £600 t0 £1000.
The landlord provided its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process within its published timescales. This noted that the landlord had failed to act on the resident’s reports of repairs and arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection. There is no evidence that there was any monitoring of the outcome of the complaint to ensure that the surveyor’s inspection led to the repairs being progressed. This led to the resident escalating her complaint as the issues she had reported remained outstanding.
There was a delay in its stage 2 response, taking a total of 30 working days to provide its reply. There is no evidence that it communicated with the resident about this delay. The responses to the resident’s complaints do not provide an action plan for addressing the outstanding repairs. Indeed, at stage 2 it provided a list of actions it has undertaken and asked resident to contact it to arrange follow up. Given the significant effort taken by resident to raise her complaint this is inappropriate. It would have been reasonable given the range of repairs that the resident had raised for the landlord to provide a clear action plan setting out what it would and would not do to address her concerns. There was no evidence of follow up beyond the complaint response to ensure identified actions were completed.
When investigating complaints we apply our dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right and learn from outcomes. The complaint responses do not demonstrate a level of reflection to consider where the landlord could have improved its service to the resident. Without a clear action plan for the outcome to the resident’s complaint, or a review of what other steps the landlord could have taken to prevent the recurrence of the issues raised by the resident, it has not adhered to these principles. This left the resident disappointed and frustrated by the outcome and led to an escalation of her complaint.
Following the resident bringing her complaint to us, and in response to several new complaints covering the same issues, the landlord completed a detailed review of its service and its handling of the resident’s complaint. The outcome of the review letter provided a level of compensation and learnings from the resident’s complaint that would have been considered to offer reasonable redress. However, as this was not completed prior to the case being accepted for investigation by the Service such a finding cannot be made.
Our guidance on outcomes says that such a finding would not be appropriate “where an offer of redress is awarded late in a protracted process”. We therefore consider that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An order for further compensation is made in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the length of time taken to provide a resolution.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to a request for aids and adaptations is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the length of time taken to provide a resolution.
3. This is in addition to the £1600 offered to the resident as an outcome to its complaint review and the £150 offered as part of its complaints process. The landlord should provide evidence that the total sum of £1750 has been paid to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Contact the resident and arrange an inspection of her home by a suitably qualified person to ensure that it has completed all outstanding repairs. Where it finds and agrees to further repairs it should provide a time specific action plan. This should set out what it will do and by when. It should provide a copy to us as evidence of its compliance with this order.
2. Discuss with the resident the provision of flooring to the small landing area at the top of the stairs. This is in line with the commitments it made at the start of the resident’s tenancy. It must provide confirmation that it has done so and include its agreed actions within the plan provided as an outcome to a above.