Radcliffe Housing Society Limited (202402351)

Decision
Case ID	202402351
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Radcliffe Housing Society Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The resident lives with her daughter, who has mobility and additional learning needs. In 2019 and 2022 she reported leaks, damage inside her home, outstanding bathroom, kitchen and external repairs, issues with the maintenance of solar panels, and concerns about staff conduct. She said the landlord did not address these issues adequately or compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
1. Reports of leaks.
2. Bathroom and kitchen repairs.
3. External maintenance and repairs.
4. Solar panel maintenance.
5. Staff conduct and reports of discrimination.
6. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of leaks.
2. Maladministration in how the landlord handled bathroom and kitchen repairs.
3. Maladministration in how the landlord handled external maintenance and repairs.
4. No maladministration in how the landlord handled solar panel maintenance.
5. No maladministration in how the landlord handled staff conduct and reports of discrimination.
6. No maladministration in how the landlord handled the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of reported leaks

The landlord did not respond to the leaks within its required timescales, failed to act promptly on related safety concerns, and did not recognise the impact this had on the resident.

The handling of bathroom and kitchen repairs

The landlord took several months to set out a position on the shower chair and did not follow up on the outstanding bathroom sealing work, leaving the resident to chase progress. It did not communicate clearly, act within its service standards, or consider compensation for the inconvenience caused. It also failed to show it had properly assessed the condition of the resident’s kitchen, which meant it could not demonstrate that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.

The handling of external maintenance and repairs

The landlord failed to respond promptly or clearly to several external repair reports, did not carry out or document inspections, and did not act on information that the hazards were affecting a vulnerable household member. These gaps in actions and record-keeping meant the risks persisted for an unreasonably long time and caused avoidable concern and inconvenience for the resident.

The handling of solar panel maintenance

The landlord showed it has a reasonable approach to servicing the solar panels and there was no evidence the panels were unsafe or causing detriment. Although best practice guidance on frequency of servicing is broad, the landlord’s actions fell within an acceptable range.

The handling of staff conduct and reports of discrimination

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by seeking staff accounts, clarifying escalation procedures, and explaining its position. There was no independent evidence of inappropriate conduct. Its plan to introduce call recording also demonstrates learning and a commitment to improve future communication.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord handled the complaint within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s timescales and provided clear, substantive responses. While there were minor shortcomings, these did not cause additional detriment beyond the issues addressed elsewhere in the report.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior staff member. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 made up as follows: £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the leaks, repeated disputes about responsibility, and the time and trouble she spent pursuing these matters. £250 to reflect the time and trouble caused by the delays in progressing and completing the bathroom and kitchen repairs. £500 to recognise the impact caused by the failings in how it handled external maintenance and repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This payment is in addition to the landlord’s offer to cover the resident’s decoration expenses.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the kitchen and external paving outside the resident’s home. It must then produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Kitchen The condition of the kitchen units, kickboards, and any other general observations. A full scope of works to put the kitchen into a safe and serviceable condition, including any replacement components needed. Clear timescales for completing any required works. External paving The condition of the external paving, identify any trip hazards, and set out the works required to make the area safe. A clear scope of works, including repairs needed, the likely timescales for completing them, and any immediate actions required to reduce risks.	No later than 08 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to understand her concerns about how it has handled her request for kitchen and driveway adaptions. It should then provide a response in line with its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 December 2022	The resident raised a complaint. She said: Leaks When she moved into the property, she reported a leak in the airing cupboard. The landlord told her this was normal. The leak worsened over the years and caused flooding and higher water bills. A separate leak took several months to resolve and caused further flooding. She had to repair damage to her ceilings, walls and carpets at her own cost. External The landlord took several months to repair a loose air brick. Bathroom Tiles in the bathroom needed sealing to prevent further leaks. She was still waiting for a shower chair to be removed from the bathroom.
6 January 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said: Leaks It was sorry for leaks in 2019 and 2022 and accepted the length of time to resolve them was unacceptable. It explained that its previous contractor lacked the expertise to diagnose the full extent of the issues. It had appointed a new contractor who confirmed the heating system needed draining, the pipework pressure needed reconfiguration, and it needed to install new parts to protect the heating system. All repairs to resolve the leaks were now complete and the heating system met 2023 standards. It also committed to regularly servicing the heating system and ensuring contractors were fit for purpose when completing remedial works. The resident needed to provide evidence of increased water bills linked to the leaks, but it would reimburse £1,056 for the resident’s decorating costs. External It had raised a work order to remove the ramp near the driveway. However, the resident needed to speak to the local authority about installing a new ramp to support her daughter when getting in and out of the vehicle. It said it would then review and discuss costs with the local authority. Bathroom / Kitchen It had raised work orders to renew sealant in the bathroom and to inspect and possibly renew the kitchen kickboards. Communication It accepted it should have been more transparent and kept the resident informed of delays.
10 May – 23 May 2023	The resident raised a further complaint. She said the bathroom and kitchen works remained outstanding. She said her neighbour had received a full kitchen replacement and questioned why others had not, particularly as she had reported damage to her kitchen cupboards and flooring caused by the leaks. She also said the guttering needed clearing as she could see moss growing. She later asked the landlord to escalate her complaints to stage 2 of the complaints process as she remained dissatisfied with its handling of her concerns. She added that her solar panels were not serviced properly and that plumbers had told her the method used compromised health and safety.
5 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said: Bathroom / Kitchen A neighbouring property had received a kitchen replacement under a planned works programme. It had repaired the kitchen kickboards and was satisfied the kitchen was in good condition, so it did not need replacement. It had not completed bathroom work due to complexity but would schedule them in the coming days. External It had completed guttering works in 2019 and did not need to repeat them every year. It said it was better value to complete several properties at the same time, and it was now gathering quotes for guttering works in 2023/24.
26 June – 30 June 2023	The resident raised additional complaints: External The paving outside her home was broken and cracked. She said this created a health and safety risk for her daughter because the ground was unstable and she had fallen over. She paid a grounds maintenance fee said but nobody had attended for at least a month, which meant weeds were growing out of tarmac and pavements. Staff Staff were unfairly labelling her as aggressive when she was only trying to resolve outstanding repairs. She believed this was due her skin colour.
5 July 2023	The landlord issued a further complaint response. It said: External Guttering works had been scheduled for the following week. It had no prior reports about broken paving, so it had arranged an inspection for that week. It also said it had no reports about the resident’s daughter falling over. It was aware that parents using a nearby nursery were parking on the pavement at the bottom of the road and causing damage. It said it would write to the nursery. Its grounds maintenance contractor attended the area every 2 weeks and logged its visits on a portal. It said it had not received similar reports from other residents but would visit during the week to investigate. The solar panel service process met health and safety requirements. Staff Staff had reported the resident becoming irate and aggressive during telephone calls. It said it could not comment further because it did not record calls, but it was installing a new system that would record calls to help resolve future disputes. It disputed staff describing the resident as aggressive because of skin colour. It said its staff came from a range of diverse backgrounds and reflected the local community, and that staff would not be unable to determine the resident’s ethnic background over the phone.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she said the landlord had not completed the repairs it agreed to. She said staff were giving out conflicting information about her kitchen being replaced and that several points in its complaint responses were incorrect.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	How the landlord handled reports of leaks.
Finding	Maladministration

There is no dispute over the leaks in 2019 and 2022. The landlord accepted there were delays and said it struggled to diagnose the issue. When failings are acknowledged, we apply the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which looks at whether the landlord acted fairly, put things right, and learned from outcomes.
While it was positive the landlord acknowledged delays, there is no evidence it compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused or fully recognised the extent of its failings. Alongside the reports of a leak in May 2019, the resident said her bathroom light was tripping. The landlord’s repair policy explicitly required it to check electrics after a leak to ensure safety and treat the issue as an emergency, with attendance within 12 hours. Its tenancy obligations required it to keep electrical wiring in repair.
Despite this, the landlord did not check the electrics, and its records show that it only tested the lights several weeks later, after the resident said she had paid for an electrician herself. This fell short of the landlord’s policy obligations and did not follow the Dispute Resolution Principles to act fairly or put right the inconvenience caused.
Following the leak in May 2019, the landlord’s records show a dispute about damage to the resident’s walls and ceilings. The landlord directed the resident to claim for redecoration through her contents insurance policy. However, the insurer told the resident that decoration was not covered. The landlord then carried out the decoration itself 3 months later, in August 2019.
The issue here is that the landlord did not appear to understand what the insurance policy allowed and put the resident through a lengthy process before accepting responsibility. There were several emails back and fourth in which the resident said she did not want to claim through insurance because she did not feel it was her responsibility. A heated discussion also took place at her home, when staff encouraged her to make a claim.
The landlord should have known which works counted as ‘making good,’ as it had a clear obligation under the tenancy agreement to restore any area affected by its repairs, to a basic, sound condition. Additionally, its compensation policy recognises that decoration may become the landlord’s responsibility where delays or failings have contributed to the damage. By directing the resident to claim through contents insurance instead of acknowledging this, the landlord did not act in line with its obligations and caused unnecessary delay and frustration.
It was therefore consistent with its obligations that, when similar decoration issues arose again in 2022, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident. However, the evidence shows she paid for the work herself first and the landlord reimbursed her only after making complaints. This caused her avoidable time and trouble, and she should not have been put to the expense before the landlord accepted its responsibility.
As referenced earlier, the landlord did not recognise the wider distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the leaks, repeated disputes about responsibility, or the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing these matters. Restorative compensation should address not only the cost of the works but also the impact of any identified failings. The landlord therefore needs to provide appropriate compensation.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where failings have adversely affected a resident, the guidance suggests £100 to £600 to put things right. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section of the report.
The resident also said she reported a leak in the airing cupboard when she first moved in and that the landlord told her it was nothing to worry about. As there is no evidence of this earlier report, we cannot determine what happened at the time or assess how the landlord was required to respond. It was reasonable, however, for the landlord to ask the resident for copies of her water bills to assess whether there was any evidence to support further investigation into this claim and to consider reimbursement if the evidence supported this.
Overall, we have found maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of leaks.

Complaint	How the landlord handled bathroom and kitchen repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

Shower chair

The resident asked the landlord to remove a shower chair in November 2022. She raised the issue again in May 2023, highlighting that it was turning mouldy and wasn’t being used. The landlord explained that, as the chair had been installed through a disability grant, it was not something it would usually remove, but agreed at that point to take it out. The chair was removed in June 2023, which was within its 28-working-day routine repair timescales once the decision had been made.
However, it was unreasonable that it took the landlord 6 months to set out its position. If it needed to consult the local authority because the chair was grant funded, we would expect to see evidence that it made those enquiries. There is no such evidence, and the landlord did not explain the delay to the resident. This fell short of its customer engagement policy, which requires it to respond to enquiries within 7 working days or agree clear timescales for more complex issues. The lack of communication left the resident chasing for a response on whether the chair would be removed or what steps the landlord was taking to progress her request.

Bathroom sealant

The landlord raised a job in early January 2023 to reseal areas of the bathroom following the leaks in 2022. This work formed part of its duty to keep the structure and installations of the resident’s home in good repair and to prevent further water damage. Its records show that some of the sealing work was completed in late January 2023, but the operative could not finish the job because the appointment ran longer than the resident expected and she needed the remaining work rearranged.
There is no evidence the landlord followed this up or contacted the resident to set a new date. The resident had to chase the outstanding work in May 2023, and the landlord completed the work in June 2023. This meant the bathroom sealing works remained unfinished for 5 months, which fell significantly outside the landlord’s routine repair timescales.

Kitchen kickboards and cupboards

In January 2023 the landlord agreed to inspect the kitchen kickboards and consider renewing them. Its records show that a contractor visited that month and told the resident the existing kickboards had been discontinued, and that it would look for alternative options. The resident said she was unhappy with this proposal. After that visit there is no evidence the landlord took any further action. The landlord said this was because the resident refused the options offered, while the resident said she was waiting for someone to get back to her. Because the landlord did not keep a clear record of what was discussed or agreed at that appointment, it cannot show that it managed the repair properly or that it communicated its position clearly.
When the resident raised the issue again in May 2023, she reported the kickboards had rotted and were affected by woodlice, and that her kitchen cupboards were damaged. We have seen no evidence of an inspection or repair in response to these reports, despite the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stating it was satisfied the kitchen was in good condition. Without contractor notes, photographs, or another form of assessment, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately to these reports. As kitchen units and kickboards form part of the landlord’s responsibility to keep the home’s internal fixtures in good repair, the absence of inspection or action means it did not meet this obligation.
The resident told us that the condition of the kitchen cupboards posed a safety risk to her daughter, who has additional learning and mobility needs, and that the landlord should have considered this when responding to her reports. There is no evidence the resident reported any disability-related risk linked to the kitchen during the period of complaint. However, as the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the household, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether the reported repair might have affected those needs. Taking this approach would have demonstrated a more resident-focused approach.
We have seen copies of correspondence that took place later in May 2024, in which the resident notified the landlord that the kitchen cupboards were falling onto her daughter’s toes when she tried to access them. We have therefore included an order to ensure the landlord now assesses and addresses the safety concerns the resident has raised, alongside ensuring the kitchen kickboards and cupboards are repaired in line with its obligations.

Kitchen replacement

The landlord’s explanation for not replacing the resident’s kitchen was consistent with its repairs policy on planned maintenance, which schedules kitchen renewals in line with component lifespan and stock-condition information. It told the resident that her neighbour’s kitchen had been replaced because it needed to be, which was an appropriate level of detail given data protection boundaries.
We understand why the resident felt this was unfair, but the landlord was not required to replace all kitchens at the same time. Its policy makes clear that individual kitchens can be renewed earlier than others when surveys identify deterioration. The repairs policy also explains that stock condition surveys take place every 5-7 years, and we can see the landlord referred to this when explaining that her own kitchen would be assessed in line with this.
The resident told us her request for a kitchen replacement was linked to a request for kitchen adaptions for her daughter. We have not seen that this adaption request was raised with the landlord during the period covered by the complaint. While this is a reasonable matter for the resident to pursue, it must be raised as a formal complaint and taken through the landlord’s complaints procedure before it can be referred to us for further consideration. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any concerns, so we have included a recommendation to address this.

Conclusion

The landlord did not recognise the impact of the combined delays in this part of the complaint. The resident had to chase progress throughout, causing avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord also did not inspect or evidence responses to all reports about the kitchen. A fair response would have acknowledged these failings and offered compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused, consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution approach to putting things right. The landlord did not do so.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above.
Overall, we have found maladministration in how the landlord handled bathroom and kitchen repairs.

Complaint	How the landlord handled external maintenance and repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

Guttering

The resident reported in May 2023 that the guttering was blocked with moss and could cause leaks. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping gutters in good repair, so it should have treated this as a routine responsive repair. Instead, it relied on the fact the gutters were cleared in 2019 and said work did not need doing every year, and that it preferred to complete several properties together. This response was not appropriate because past clearance does not remove the landlord’s duty to respond to a new report, and efficiency considerations cannot override its obligation to assess and address current defects.
There is no evidence the landlord inspected the guttering when the concern was raised, and the resident had to chase again in June 2023 before clearance took place in mid-July 2023. The lack of timely assessment increased the risk of avoidable deterioration to the gutters and left the resident uncertain whether her home remained adequately protected from leaks.

Loose bricks and paving

The resident reported a loose air brick in August 2022. The landlord’s records show the repair was completed 3 months later in November 2022, which fell significantly outside all of its responsive repair timescales. The records also show the resident had arranged for a wasp nest to be removed around the same time, and she said wasps were entering through the gaps in the brickwork, which increased the urgency of the repair. Despite the resident raising her frustration in her complaint, the landlord offered no explanation or apology for this delay. In isolation, this failing may have been limited in impact but set against the number of other unresolved issues the resident was pursuing at the time, the delay contributed to her overall frustration and to a pattern of poor service.
In January 2023 the resident reported that the paving outside her home was broken, uneven and posed a trip hazard. The tenancy agreement makes the landlord responsible for maintaining pathways and other means of access, but there is no evidence it inspected or responded at that stage. When she raised the issue again in June 2023, she made clear that the broken and cracked slabs created a health and safety risk for her daughter, and said her daughter had fallen several times. Despite this, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in July 2023 said it had no prior reports even though as noted above this was incorrect. The resident continued to report hazards through to May 2024, and the landlord’s records remain unclear about the extent of any inspection or repair.
Given the explicit reports of falls and the daughter’s mobility needs, this was a serious issue and ongoing safety issue. While we cannot make legal findings under the Equality Act, the landlord knew the household included a vulnerable family member and that the condition of the paving was affecting her ability to move safely around the home. In that context, it would therefore have been reasonable for it to consider whether the reported hazard posed a greater impact on the resident’s daughter and to factor this into how it prioritised the repair. A prompt, documented inspection and clear plan to reduce the risks would have demonstrated this.
The landlord’s lack of action, poor records, and unclear repair planning fell short of its duties to maintain safe access and to take vulnerabilities into account when deciding how to respond. This left the resident managing daily hazards, increased her anxiety about her daughter’s safety, and added to the cumulative frustration caused by other unresolved repairs. We have therefore included an order above to ensure this repair is now addressed.

Driveway

In January 2023 the landlord agreed to remove the small ramp by the driveway because it posed a slip hazard, and its records show this was completed within its 28-day routine repair timescale. The resident told us the landlord also promised to pave over her driveway and that she needed the driveway adapted to help her daughter exit the vehicle safely. However, these issues were not raised in the resident’s formal complaint and were not addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord’s records show these matters being discussed from December 2023 onwards, which falls outside the scope of this investigation. We therefore cannot assess the landlord’s handling of these matters.
We have included a recommendation for the landlord to consider these issues formally if it has not done so already, after which the resident may refer the matter to us is if she remains dissatisfied.

Grounds maintenance

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that she pays a service charge for grounds maintenance, so the landlord needed to show it monitored the contractor’s work and took her concerns seriously. When she reported in July 2023 that tasks were not being carried out, she asked how many hours the contracted was contracted for. The landlord said the contractor uploaded evidence through a shared portal and that it would carry out a site visit. However, we have seen no record of what information was reviewed from the portal, no evidence it confirmed the contracted hours, and no evidence the promised visit took place and any agreed outcome.
Because the landlord did not record or evidence these checks, it cannot show it investigated the concern and verified whether the contractor was meeting its obligations. This fell below expected standards of contractor oversight and service-charge management.
We note that the landlord has recently appointed a new grounds-maintenance contractor and acknowledged to residents that previous standards had fallen short of what it expected. While this does not change its responsibilities during the period of complaint, it demonstrates that the landlord has recognised weaknesses in its contractor oversight and has taken steps to improve service quality going forward.

Conclusion

The delays inspecting and clearing the gutters, repairing the loose air brick, and addressing the hazardous paving outside the resident’s home caused her avoidable distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble in repeatedly chasing progress. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 to recognise the impact of these combined failings.
Overall, we have found maladministration in how the landlord handled external maintenance and repairs.

Complaint	How the landlord handled solar panel maintenance.
Finding	No maladministration

Solar panel maintenance

The resident said the solar panels had not been serviced before she raised the issue in 2022 and that the method used when servicing them did not meet health and safety standards. The landlord has provided evidence showing that the panels have been serviced yearly from 2022 onwards. We have not seen any firm obligation requiring annual servicing, beyond the landlord’s general duty under the tenancy agreement to maintain installations for the supply of electricity and the exterior of the property. Industry guidance suggests periodic testing is good practice, typically every 5 -10 years, but this is not a prescriptive standard.
None of the servicing reports show that the panels were unsafe, defective, or causing detriment to the resident. On that basis, we cannot conclude that the landlord failed to follow its obligations regarding maintenance of the solar panels or that the method used during servicing placed the resident at risk. The landlord’s approach was within a reasonable range of practice.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in how the landlord handled solar panel maintenance.

Complaint	How the landlord handled staff conduct and reports of discrimination.
Finding	No maladministration

The evidence shows a long-standing tension between the resident and several members of staff. Each time the resident raised concerns about staff behaviour, the landlord sought accounts from the staff involved and recorded its findings, which shows it took the reports seriously and attempted to investigate them. The resident said in June 2023 that she was being labelled aggressive because of her skin colour and that a staff member refused to escalate her call to senior management. The landlord denied that discrimination took place and said staff could not know her appearance during a phone call. It also said it could not comment on that exact exchange but had spoken to the staff member to confirm they are expected to provide management details when requested. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take in the circumstance.
While the landlord could not resolve the conflicting accounts, it recognised the limitations of its process and said it was installing a call-recording system to improve transparency and support fair investigation of future concerns. This was an appropriate learning step.
In light of the above, we have found no maladministration in how the landlord handled staff conduct and reports of discrimination.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the associated complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
2. Its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were issued within the Code’s target timescales of 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
3. The complaint responses were detailed and clearly explained the landlord’s position, which demonstrated good complaint handling practice. However, as noted earlier in this report, there were missed opportunities for the landlord to acknowledge identified failings and to offer appropriate redress.
4. Although there were minor shortcomings, we have seen no evidence that these caused the resident any additional detriment beyond the issues addressed in the substantive findings above.
We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Vulnerabilities

The case highlights the value of the landlord proactively considering whether reported repairs may have a greater impact on vulnerable household members, even when the resident does not explicitly link the issue to vulnerability. A more conscious approach to identifying and recording these factors would help the landlord assess risk earlier and support more informed decisions about repair priorities and communication.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The repair records in this case were generally detailed and showed good day-to-day updates. However, key documents, such as copies of surveyor assessments, completion reports and photographs, were missing. These gaps made it harder for the landlord to evidence the actions it took at important stages of the case. Ensuring that all formal actions and assessments are stored consistently would strengthen its audit trail and support clear decision-making.