Housing Solutions (202303342)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303342

Housing Solutions

18 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the level of the service charge.
2. Reports of issues with its estate management.
3. Reports of items left in external bin stores.
4. Reports of external building disrepair.
5. Reports about the communal front entrance door (CFED).
6. Concerns about the demarcation of parking bays.
7. Concerns raised about the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

The residents are shared ownership leaseholders of 10 flats in a block constructed at some time prior to 2016. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the building.
The residents gave consent for the representative to raise the complaints with the landlord on their behalf and also to bring them to the Ombudsman. The shared ownership leaseholders of 1 flat have since withdrawn their involvement in the complaint. Hereinafter, ‘the residents’ refers to shared ownership leaseholders of 9 flats and includes communications from the representative on their behalf.
In June 2022, the residents raised issues with the landlord regarding the bin store and rubbish left on the estate. On 30 August 2022, they also reported rats. Between September 2022 and January 2023, the residents were in communication with the landlord regarding their reports made about overflowing rubbish due to inadequate bin provision, waste left in external stores, grounds maintenance, external building disrepair, communal window cleaning, the CFED, a rat infestation, a boggy area of ground at the rear of the building, and issues with parking.
On 2 February 2023, the residents raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s management of the estate. They said there had been “ongoing neglect” and that they were unhappy with the landlord’s response to reports raised about:
1. Inadequate bin provision and a rat infestation.
2. Waste left in external stores.
3. Boggy ground/drainage issues in communal space.
4. Grounds maintenance and cleaning below standard.
5. The CFED was not fit for purpose.
6. External building disrepair.
7. Demarcation of parking bays.
The residents requested action including monthly block inspections, surveys of the boggy communal area and the gutters/downpipes, and for compensation.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This stated:
1. Bin provision had been inadequate, and this had contributed to problems of pests. It was sorry but it replaced bins which had now resolved the issue. It would not recharge residents for new bins.
2. It took swift action to remove waste left in the external stores on the estate.
3. Regarding rats, it had arranged pest control visits following reports and rat proofed the block as recommended. No failings had been found.
4. Regarding the CFED, it acknowledged that nothing has been done to permanently rectify the issue despite “numerous” reports received about this.
5. It could not find any reports relating to boggy ground or damp issues. There had also been recent gutter repairs that it would not charge to residents.
6. Grounds maintenance and cleaning staff had attended as per its rota.
7. The local council removed plaques previously in situ for allocated parking as they were a breach of planning laws. Consequently, it could not legally mark parking spaces.
On 4 March 2023, the residents raised a stage 2 complaint reiterating their concerns and stating:
1. The landlord had not addressed their requests for:
  1. A meeting to discuss the complaint or for monthly inspections.
  2. A downpipe/guttering survey.
2. The landlord delayed with ordering new bins.
3. The landlord’s actions to eradicate rats was too slow and costs for pest control should not be passed on to residents.
4. The landlord had not provided any permanent solution to the CFED or paid them compensation for the issues, as promised.
5. The allocation of individual parking spaces was specified in the lease and must be marked to ensure exclusive use.
On 2 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response in which it reiterated the findings from its stage 1 response. The landlord also said:
1. It had surveyed the CFED and found this to be operational although it had found the door remained open if it was left fully opened and not pulled closed.
2. The ground to the rear of the block was boggy after rain but installing land drainage would be costly. There was no evidence that moisture was penetrating the building.
3. External stores were found to be clear and clean at the latest walkabout.
4. The conditions of the external building were considered “good” during an inspection on 18 May 2023. It would address 3 minor repairs found.
5. It had found guttering and down pipes to be loose. It would secure these.
6. Residents could join staff on monthly inspections if they wished to.
7. After reviewing plans, it had found it was able to provide demarcation for parking space and it would proceed with arranging works.
On 17 June 2023, the residents requested escalation to stage 3, stating the landlord had not properly addressed the issues.
On 27 September 2023, a stage 3 panel meeting was held and on 10 October 2023, the panel provided the written stage 3 final response. This stated that the panel had reviewed the evidence and considered if the landlord had done everything reasonable and appropriate to address residents’ concerns at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. Its response explained the landlord had taken sufficient steps to address each concern raised except in relation to:
1. Communication, this had not met the appropriate standard. The panel offered the residents £200 in compensation for this failure and recommended staff training.
2. Demarcation of parking bays, the panel said allocated parking spaces should be marked as per the residents’ leasehold agreement. The landlord would provide demarcation works at no cost to residents.
The panel also stated the landlord would:
1. Provide a drain survey.
2. Meet with residents to discuss scope of the estate management and cleaning included in the service.

Post final response

On 23 October 2023, the residents told us they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to all aspects of their complaint.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord agreed to provide a gutter survey and said this would take place in November 2023. It said it would share the findings.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme notes that we may not investigate complaints which, in our opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge.
In their complaint, the residents complained about service charge increases and requested service charge refunds for delays and poor management of the estate including repairs. While the landlord’s estate management has been investigated below, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the complaint about the level of service charges. Such concerns are more appropriate for the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of the service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

In the complaint, the residents refer to “historical” issues, dating back to 2016. However, the residents did not raise a formal complaint until February 2023.
Residents are expected to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Therefore, the focus of our investigation will be the timeframe from June 2022 onwards when residents raised concerns as a group complaint. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the residents’ formal complaint raised with the landlord on 2 February 2023. Any reference to events pre-2022, is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of issues with its estate management

In the formal complaint, the residents said they were unhappy with the quality of communal services delivered by the landlord and said there had been “ongoing neglect” and issues with its management of the estate.
Under the lease agreements, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the main external structure of the building and the common parts and for cleaning the common parts. This is echoed in the landlord’s shared ownership management (SOM) and repair and maintenance (repair) policies. The residents must pay for these services through the service charge.

Estate management – Bin store and rats

The residents were dissatisfied with the landlord’s delayed response to concerns raised about the adequacy of the bin store, citing overflowing rubbish and missing bin lids. They believed this inaction led to a rat infestation (at the bin store and in the building) which was also not promptly addressed following reports.
In accordance with the lease, the landlord’s neighbourhood management (NM) policy and repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal bin stores and pest control in the common areas.
In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord acknowledged the bin provision at the estate was inadequate which had contributed to the rat problem. It apologised and stated it had provided new bins at no cost to the residents, resolving the issue.
However, it is evident that concerns were first raised about the bin store in June 2022 and rats reported on 30 August 2022. In its responses, the landlord explained a delay in providing bins was caused by incorrect advice from the local council received in October 2022 which led to unresponsive contact with waste management contractor. It said new bins were only ordered from an independent contractor on 28 November 2022 after the local council confirmed it could source bins elsewhere. While this accounted for the delay from October to November 2022, it does not explain for the lack of timely action since June 2022. The landlord failed to address this delay in its formal responses.
The landlord responded promptly to pest reports on 30 August 2022, 28 October 2022, early December 2022, and 28 December 2022. During visits, traps were set, rat-proofing carried out, and poison put down (once residents’ approval was given). This led to the eradication of rats from the block in January 2023. The steps taken to address the problem was reasonable.
The action taken by the landlord to resolve these issues and to absorb the cost of the new bins went some way to put right failings. However, no compensation was offered. Given the acknowledged failing that inadequate bin provision on the estate had contributed to a rat problem, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Estate management – Boggy ground/drainage

The residents complained about the boggy ground in the communal area at the rear of the building, making it effectively unusable. They requested a (land) drainage survey and remedial works as necessary.
Following a grounds inspection on 18 May 2023, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the ground was damp/boggy (during wet weather). It said, however, that installing land drainage would be too costly for an area it considered “a buffer space” between the public park and one side of the building. It said there was no evidence that moisture was penetrating the building.
In the stage 3 response, the panel reiterated this position but agreed to carry out a drainage survey free of charge to give residents “peace of mind”.
While inspecting the area was appropriate, the landlord has not provided clear evidence to support its position that the moisture from this area was not penetrating the property building. As such, the offer at stage 3 to provide a drainage survey to reassure residents (without passing this cost on to residents), was reasonable. However, it is evident that instead of a land drainage survey, a CCTV survey of the drains was carried out which residents had not requested.
As the CCTV survey did not consider the full drainage system or assess if moisture from this area was affecting the building, this action was inadequate. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the landlord complete a land drainage survey in respect to the boggy and damp ground (without passing the cost of this onto residents).

Estate management – Grounds and cleaning standards

The residents complained about the cleaning and grounds maintenance on the estate and asked for the standard to be raised to avoid problems occurring. They gave examples of shrubs growing too close to the building, trees self-seeding, and weeds.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had reviewed data which showed grounds maintenance and cleaning staff were attending the block as per the agreed rotas. It said any previous requests or specific issues raised had been addressed promptly and inspected after completion.
Evidence provided by the landlord of dates its cleaning and grounds staff attended the residents’ bock since the beginning of 2023, show they were in regular attendance. However, we have not seen any clear evidence to demonstrate the quality or details of the services being provided at the block during these times. Nor have we been provided with the photographs of site visits referred to by the landlord, only the landlord’s ‘service standards photo guide’.
We are also mindful that the landlord’s stage 1 response contradicts the position it gave in its email sent to residents a few weeks earlier on 10 January 2023. At this time, the landlord acknowledged that cleaning and estate services provided had been “substandard”; however, this was not noted in its stage 1 response.
At stage 3, the panel reiterated that it was satisfied that grounds and cleaning work was to an appropriate standard and referred to photographs taken of site visits. The panel did not find any failings in relation to this concern but recommended that the landlord meet with the residents to clarify the scope of the work included in the service it provided.
However, given the insufficient records provided to us to demonstrate this position, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the standard of cleaning and grounds maintenance being provided was adequate. The landlord also failed to explain the change of position since it acknowledged the services were below an appropriate standard, shortly prior to the formal complaint.
In regard to the recommendation made in the final response for the landlord to meet with residents to clarify the scope of service, the landlord has provided us with a list of cleaning and grounds maintenance tasks that are part of the service to be provided. However, it is unclear from the available evidence if the recommended meeting with residents took place. Therefore, these issues indicate the landlord’s response to this complaint was unreasonable.

Estate management – Conclusion

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it agreed it could have managed the estate better. However, it also said that on being made aware of the issues, it had tried to improve and resolve the issues. We recognise from the evidence that the landlord took some steps to investigate and address the concerns raised by residents regarding its management of the estate both before and during the complaints process. However, we would also expect the landlord to provide appropriate redress for failings where found in accordance with our dispute resolution principles which are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
This investigation found that the landlord has not provided adequate redress to the failings we have identified in relation to the complaints about the bin store and rats, boggy ground in communal area and cleaning and grounds standards. Therefore, this amounts to an overall finding of maladministration. It is appropriate for the landlord to pay the residents further compensation of £100 each for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused while handling this complaint. This amount is in accordance with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where a landlord’s failings adversely affect residents.

Items left in external stores

The residents complained about how the landlord managed waste and disused items left on the estate. They gave examples of a motorcycle left in the bin area (26 September to the end of November 2022) and builders’ rubbish left in the ‘gas store’. Residents said they raised similar concerns in June 2022 and requested regular checks to prevent health, safety, and fire hazards.
In accordance with its NM policy, the landlord is responsible for removing litter and fly-tipping on its land and it will arrange clearance accordingly. This policy also states it will carry out monthly inspections to blocks and complete ‘neighbourhood walkabouts’.
The landlord placed a ‘tort notice’ on the motorcycle during the week of 17 October 2022 and subsequently removed it and other dumped items after the 14-day notice period. The residents had raised similar concerns in June 2022; however, these related to different items which were also removed. As such, the landlord acted in line with its policy. Nonetheless, the residents request for regular checks was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it completed monthly inspections, and that it was happy for residents to join them on these inspections if they wished to. This was reasonable; however, it would have been helpful if the landlord provided the residents with information regarding its timetable for monthly visits to ensure the residents had reasonable notice of its visits. It added that it would like residents to continue to report issues on the site as they arise. The residents were unhappy with this response as they believed the onus should be on the landlord to identify issues. However, the landlord’s response was in line with its repairs and NM polices which make clear residents are expected to report issues. This, along with the landlord’s staff reporting issues during monthly inspections and on when on site, will help in finding early resolutions.
Overall, the landlord’s response to reports raised about waste items left in the external stores was reasonable.

CFED

The residents complained that the CFED had never worked properly as it did not ‘close to the frame’, and said this was a fire, safety, and security risk. They said repeated repairs had failed. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged there had been numerous faults reported with the CFED and that “nothing seems to have been done to permanently rectify the issue”. The landlord said it would write to residents regarding compensation for the failure in service and that it would work with its surveyors to find a permanent solution that would not be charged to residents.
The landlord’s repair records confirm recurring issues with the CFED not closing or locking automatically. The landlord’s initial offer to resolve the issue and compensate residents was, therefore, reasonable. However, following an inspection on 18 May 2022, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated the door was functional except when opened fully. It proposed installing a door stop, which residents opposed, citing fire safety concerns.
At stage 3 of its complaints process, the landlord upheld its view that the door was adequate citing a further inspection of the CFED in September 2023 which found the door closed correctly unless opened to 100 degrees. Given the residents’ opposition to fitting a door stop, the only action suggested by the panel at the end of its complaints process was for residents to ensure the door was closed behind them.
While it was appropriate that the landlord surveyed the door as part of its investigation into the complaint, the delay in doing so led to a reversal of the commitments made at stage 1, including compensation. This approach caused confusion and was unreasonable. We also note that the landlord subsequently replaced the CFED in August 2024, resolving the problem of repeated repairs. This action was appropriate; however, the lack of any meaningful action taken to address this issue during the complaints process and change in position was unreasonable. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord while handling reports about the CFED.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the residents compensation of £100 each for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused while handling this complaint. This amount is in accordance with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where a landlord’s failings adversely affect residents.

External building disrepair

The residents were dissatisfied with the condition of the external building. At stage 1, the residents specifically mentioned disrepair to guttering and asked the landlord to undertake a gutter/downpipe survey due to reoccurring issues experienced.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed both historic and more recent repairs to the guttering had been provided and said the recent repairs had not been recharged to the residents. While this was reasonable, during an inspection carried out 2 months later, it found further issues with the guttering. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that some guttering required drain connections and that some downpipes were loose at ground level. It also said while the overall condition of the building was ‘good’, some ‘minor’ repairs were identified. These were to rectify paint flaking on timber columns at communal entrance, mastic cracked on an expansion joint, and damage to the gate between the car park and main road. The landlord said it would address all repairs.
While its commitment to addressing the disrepair found was appropriate, it did not provide timescales in its response. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances in order to manage the residents’ expectations. However, we can see from the landlord’s repair records that it raised jobs at this time (2 June 2023) for the disrepair mentioned and that the repairs to the guttering and downpipe were provided within the next 14 days. The landlord also addressed a subsequent report regarding communal lighting raised on 20 September 2023, within 6 days.
Its repair policy has 2 timescales for repairs which is 4 hours for emergency repairs and 21 days for routine repairs. Therefore, in these instances, the landlord completed the repairs within its 21-day timescale which was appropriate. However, its repairs data shows that it failed to carry out the repairs to ‘minor’ jobs raised until 20 February 2024. This is evidence of the landlord not completing repairs in line with timescales within its repairs policy.
We also note that the landlord failed to address the residents’ request for a downpipe and guttering survey during the complaints process. Given the intermittent issues with the buildings’ guttering and downpipes, this would have been reasonable. However, it is evident the landlord subsequently offered to provide one shortly after its final response, on 30 October 2023. It told residents this would be free of charge and completed in November 2023. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a job for this survey at this time. This action was reasonable as it would reassure residents there were no underlying defects with the guttering/downpipes. It would also reassure them that the issues had not caused dampness to the building, as despite the landlord saying the issues had not affected the building, there is no clear evidence to establish this. However, we are mindful that there is no evidence of the landlord providing the downpipe/gutter survey when promised, or at all.
In summary, the landlord raised repairs to rectify issues identified with the external building during the complaints process including further issues with the guttering and downpipes. However, not all repairs were completed within the appropriate timescale and there is no evidence of it providing the downpipe/gutter survey after agreeing this action following its final response. This is evidence of service failure by the landlord.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the residents compensation of £50 each for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings. This amount is in accordance with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where a landlord has not recognised failings.

The demarcation of parking bays

The complaint concerned the lack of demarcation of parking bays. Residents explained this issue caused major inconvenience as they were often left without parking. They requested that the bays were marked to protect their sole use.
The lease agreement provides for allocated parking bays. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said local council planners had ordered the removal of plaques that were previously in situ as these breached planning law. As such, it was unable to reinstate these. In its stage 2 response, however, the landlord said it had found evidence of an approved parking conveyance plan which would enable it to rebut any further challenge from the local council. It apologised to the residents for the confusion and said it would proceed to get some plaques made up with plot numbers allocating the parking spaces.
It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed to residents its intention to reinstate demarcation of allocated parking bays after a review of its records which confirmed this was not in breach of planning law. At stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints process, the panel confirmed the cost of would not be passed onto residents and said the landlord’s development team would contact them to discuss options of how best to mark the bays.
The landlord’s apology and promised action to provide parking demarcation at no extra cost to residents is evidence of the landlord acting in accordance with our dispute resolution principles which are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
However, it is evident that the promised demarcation work was not completed until around 25 March 2024. This was 13 months after the residents’ formal complaint, 9 months after it first agreed to reinstate demarcation (at stage 2), and 5 months after its final response. We note the need for the landlord to (informally) consult with residents as to the preferred type of demarcation and that this took extra time. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the failings identified and the delay in providing the demarcation of parking bays, the apology and promise of parking demarcation was insufficient to resolve the complaint. This results in an overall finding of service failure. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the residents compensation of £50 each for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by failings. This is in accordance with a level recommended in our remedies guidance where a landlord has not fully put right failings found.

Communication and complaint handling

The residents complained about the landlord’s communication, saying at times it was inappropriate and lacked empathy. The residents also raised concerns about the delays in providing its complaints responses. They requested ‘transparent’ communications, ‘full’ engagement, and a meeting to discuss the issues.
In regard to communication, landlords should provide reasonably prompt, courteous, and appropriately worded responses to demonstrate concerns raised are being taken seriously. In the residents’ case, there were instances where the landlord’s communication was dismissive in tone including on 16 December 2022 when the landlord told residents it had spent “a disproportionate amount of time” on their block. Residents said this suggested they were to blame for “the neglect” of their block.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised if its comments had made the residents feel as though they were being blamed. It also explained that it was trying to manage residents’ expectations regarding the amount of time it had to spend on the property building. It was appropriate that it recognised the wording used in its earlier communication was not sufficient.
However, we note the landlord did not address the request for a meeting at stage 1. After the residents repeated this request in their stage 2 complaint, the landlord agreed but only gave the residents a few hours’ notice of its 18 May 2023 visit. The was unreasonable, however, in its stage 2 response, it proposed a virtual meeting in early July 2023 to ensure maximum attendance. Given that many residents were at work, this option would have provided more flexibility as such its suggestion was reasonable.
At stage 3 the panel acknowledged poor communication on the part of the landlord including occasions when its tone was inappropriate and dismissive. It also cited emails which blamed delays on other teams and suggested residents raise complaints to prompt action. Furthermore, the panel acknowledged the notice board on site had not been kept updated and that residents were “told off” by estate team for reasonably raising issues with caretakers and grounds staff. As the panel concluded that that the landlord’s communication did not meet expectations, it recommended staff training to improve communication.
In regard to complaint handling, at the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. We note that since this time, the landlord has moved to a 2-stage process which is a requirement under our current Complaint Handling Code (published in April 2024) to avoid an unduly long complaints process. As such the landlord is not required to take any further action in this regard.
However, there were delays by the landlord in providing the residents with complaint responses at stage 2 and 3 of the complaints process that applied at the time. At stage 2, it provided its response on 2 June 2023. This was 60 working days after the residents’ stage 2 request of 4 March 2023. This is evidence of the landlord failing to adhere to its 20-working day timescale (its policy stated this could be extended but only by 5 days).
At stage 3, it provided its final response on 10 October 2023 after intervention from us. The landlord’s complaints policy does not state a timescale to provide its final response after the stage 3 escalation request, only that the panel will report its final decision within 10 days after the panel meeting. The landlord provided its decision within 10 working days of the panel meeting of 27 September 2023 as per its policy. However, we note that its final response was issued to residents 81 working days after the residents’ stage 3 request of 17 June 2023. We can see from the landlord’s internal records that it did not log the resident’s stage 3 request when initially received as this was lost internally. Nonetheless the landlord was responsible for the delay in escalating the complaint which was excessive and ultimately delayed the residents’ access to the Ombudsman.
During the complaints process the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its complaint responses and for the landlord’s communications not meeting the appropriate standard. As mentioned above, the panel recommended staff training around communication. This is evidence of it learning lessons to avoid the same issues reoccurring. The panel also offered residents £200 each for acknowledged failings. This shows that the landlord acted in accordance with our dispute resolution principles of: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Overall, we are satisfied that the redress provided by the landlord was sufficient to resolve failings in its communication and complaint handling.

Determination

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of the service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of issues with its estate management.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of items left in external bin stores.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports about CFED.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of external building disrepair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of concerns about the demarcation of parking bays.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in its response to concerns raised about communication and complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Provides an apology to residents for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pays each resident (9 flats) additional compensation of £300 made up of:
  1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling of reports of issues with estate management.
  2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling reports about the CFED.
  3. £50 for failings for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling of reports of external building disrepair.
  4. £50 for failings for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling concerns about the demarcation of parking bays.
If not already done so, completes at no cost to residents:
1. A land drainage survey in respect to the boggy and damp communal ground.
2. A gutter/downpipe survey.
Provide us with evidence of its meeting with residents to discuss scope of cleaning and estate services. If it has not done so, the landlord should contact the residents and offer a meeting.
Provide us with evidence of further training on communications as per the recommendation in the stage 3 final response.
Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

If not already done so, pay the residents the £200 each in compensation offered during the complaints process.