Notting Hill Genesis (202405984)

Decision
Case ID	202405984
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

Background

The resident has tilt and turn windows in her home. She has had repeated repairs issues with the windows since 2022. She complained to the landlord about its handling of the repairs, an incident involving a repairs contractor, a cockroach infestation, and her rehousing application.

What the complaint is about

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of:
1. A window repair.
2. Concerns about staff conduct.
3. A cockroach infestation.
4. Her rehousing application.
5. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. A window repair.
2. Concerns about staff conduct.
3. A cockroach infestation.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Her rehousing application.

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

Summary of reasons

A window repair

There was an avoidable delay of around 1 month in the window repair. The landlord could have gone further to recognise the resident’s personal circumstances.

Concerns about staff conduct

The landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns was not thorough enough, and it did not provide evidence that it completed the actions it had agreed to put things right.

Cockroach infestation

The landlord offered the resident pest control treatments. However, it did not always take a robust and proactive approach to resolving the cockroach infestation in the resident’s block. The issue is not resolved.

Rehousing application

There was an avoidable delay of around 2 weeks in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application. The landlord did not tell the resident that it would not contact her GP to request medical evidence soon enough.

The associated complaint

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint, and made a large offer of compensation outside of the complaints process. There were delays in the complaints process which the landlord acknowledged. It offered compensation in recognition of the impact of the delays.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 April 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £910 made up as follows: £30 compensation awarded by the landlord in recognition of the impact of a missed appointment on 31 January 2025. £30 compensation to recognise the impact of the landlord’s missed appointment on 23 October 2024. £200 for distress and inconvenience cause by the landlord’s handling of the window repair. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s concerns about staff conduct. £150 for the impact of failings in its handling of pest control treatment in the resident’s block. £100 for the impact of failings in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. £100 for the impact of complaint handling failures identified by this investigation. £100 awarded by the landlord during the complaints process for delays in the complaints process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord can deduct from this award any compensation it has already paid.	No later than 24 April 2026
3	The landlord must set out in writing to the resident and our service the actions it is taking to resolve the cockroach infestation in the block. It must explain: The scope of treatment in the resident’s block, including the treatment of communal areas. How often it is doing treatments. How it is monitoring the effectiveness of the treatment program. Its response to the resident’s request for property proofing. Any other actions it is taking to support the treatment, for example if it has/will write to residents to give them advice on manging infestation in their block.	No later than 24 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14-17 October 2024	The resident sent 3 emails to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with its service. She said: The landlord’s contractor was belittling to her, called her a ‘little girl’ and said she had broken the windows in her home. Its surveyor did not support her during the incident. She was unhappy with its handling of a window repair. She wanted to move. She had sent a transfer application 3 months previously. There was a cockroach infestation in her block.
15 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold her complaint. It said: It had offered the resident several appointments for the window repair. Some of these were not suitable for her, or she was not home. It would arrange another appointment. The contractor had explained how to use the windows effectively. They did not mean to cause offence. It would arrange an alternative contractor to complete the repairs. It was doing a block-wide treatment for the cockroach infestation. It had offered her treatment in her property, but she told it that the infestation was not affecting her home. It offered appropriate help to progress her housing application. She had now returned the medical form, but it had asked her to provide more information. It accepted there was a delay in its complaint response. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation.
15 December 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: She did have a cockroach infestation. She needed the service, but could not provide access owing to a medical procedure. She disagreed that the landlord had done a block treatment. She had sent the landlord the transfer application but it lost the documents. The landlord was asking her for information she had already provided. It would need to contact her GP for more information as she did not have access to her full medical file. The window was broken, and the landlord had previously paid her compensation, which demonstrated this. The contractor accused her of breaking a different window, which was not broken. The new window contractor had tried to make an appointment when she was recovering from a medical procedure. It also tried to arrange an appointment on the day, which was not reasonable. She had missed appointments for reasons that she had explained and felt the landlord was blaming her for this.
18 February 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said: It had listened to a recording of the incident with the contractor. It did not think the contractor had malicious intentions during the interaction. However, it agreed that the conversation was unacceptable and inappropriate. It partially upheld this element of the complaint. It had given feedback about the incident to the contractor’s manager. Its records showed that the window had been repaired. Based on what the resident said, it would arrange another appointment. It had previously awarded compensation for delays in the window up to 2 August 2024. Recent delays in the repair were because the resident had not provided access. It had booked a new appointment for 25 February 2025. It listed dates it said its contractor had been to the property to survey or treat. It said the resident told its contractor on 6 November 2024 and 16 November 2024 that there were no cockroaches in the property. It was still visiting the block and as the resident had said she was having issues, it would visit her home. Her application to move under medical grounds was declined. It outlined the appeals process. It accepted there were delays in the complaint handling process. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation for this failing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that it had taken the landlord too long to repair the windows. She was unhappy with the outcome of her application for a medical transfer. The cockroach infestation in her block was not resolved.

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	The window repair
Finding	Maladministration

There have been repair issues with the resident’s windows since 2022. The landlord’s records show the window was repaired on 2 August 2024. It acknowledged failings in its handling of the repair. It awarded the resident £3750 in compensation for ongoing issues with the repair between 2022 and 2 August 2024. The landlord explained to us that this offer of compensation was made outside of its complaints process in response to an enquiry by the resident. This is discussed further later in the report.
When the resident complained on 17 October 2024, she did not raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of the window repairs done before 2 August 2024, and they were not considered in the complaints process. As such, while we have considered the history of the repairs and the landlord’s previous offer of compensation for context, our investigation focusses on the landlord’s handling of the window repair from 2 August 2024 onwards.
The resident reported that the window was broken again on 22 August 2024. She said that it was dropping when it opened and it no longer closed fully, which caused a draught in the property. The landlord appropriately arranged a recall of the repair (when a landlord asks an operative or contractor to reattend as it was not fixed adequately at a previous attempt).
In the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it commits to completing routine repairs within 20 working days of the date it becomes aware that a repair is needed. Its contemporaneous records show that it attempted to visit on 3 occasions between 22 August 2024 and 18 September 2024. These visits were within its policy timescale. The resident was aware of at least 2 of the appointments, but was not at home to give the landlord’s contractor access. She explained that her child had been unwell and she had experienced a bereavement. The resident’s comments are noted, however, given the circumstances there was no avoidable delay by the landlord here.
A joint visit with the landlord’s surveyor and contractor took place on 14 October 2024. The landlord said it found that the previous repair had been done adequately, but the resident was having difficulty using the windows.
The resident has tilt-and-turn windows. These can operate in either a tilt position, or a turn position. They can experience ‘mishandling’. This term refers to a common outcome which happens if the person opening the window uses the tilt and turn functions at the same time. In this case, the top of the window can drop. Closing the window does not fix the issue, and it can only be ‘reset’ in a specific way.
There are devices designed to prevent this from happening. They are called ‘mishandling devices’. While there is no legal requirement for tilt and turn windows to have a mishandling device, they are commonly fitted. After the appointment, the landlord recorded that it needed to fit mishandling devices to the resident’s window.
The resident felt that the contractor’s behaviour during the appointment was inappropriate and she asked both the surveyor and the contractor to leave the property. Following this incident the landlord agreed to appoint a different contractor to assess the windows, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord instructed 2 different contractors to contact the resident to make appointments with her. It is not clear if two different contractors were needed, or if this was an error. In either case, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not communicate with the resident about this clearly and this caused confusion.
The first contractor contacted the resident and arranged an appointment on 23 October 2024. As a result, when the second contractor contacted her on 22 October 2024 to make an appointment, she declined the appointment. She did not understand why a second contractor was contacting her, as she had already booked an appointment.
However, the appointment on 23 October 2024 did not go ahead as the first contractor did not have an engineer available. The landlord’s records indicate that it was not aware of the appointment and was not notified that it was cancelled. The landlord apologised for the confusion, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer £30 compensation when there is a missed appointment. In the circumstances of the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the missed appointment, but it did not do so. We have awarded the resident £30 in compensation to recognise confusion, inconvenience and resulting delay caused by this missed appointment.
The landlord’s records show the that the contractor called the resident on 5 November 2024 to arrange an appointment, but she was not available. On 18 November 2024, it offered the resident a same day appointment, as it had unexpected availability. As the resident had other commitments, she could not accommodate the appointment.
Ordinarily appointments should be made with notice. However, in our opinion, the offer of a last-minute appointment was not a failing by the landlord. This is because it did not cause a delay in the repair, and it demonstrated a desire to resolve the issue for the resident.
On 18 November, the contractor offered the resident a choice of appointments and she confirmed her availability on 28 November 2024. The resident could not keep the appointment due to a medical emergency.
The contractor did not arrange another appointment until 9 January 2025. This was 26 working days after the previous appointment attempt. The landlord’s records do not show that it followed up the repair adequately during this period. As it has not explained this, we consider that it was an avoidable delay.
On 9 January 2025, the landlord inspected the property. It identified that the bedroom window needed repair as it needed a new ‘scissor stay’ and replacement of the silicone around the frame. Due to the time passed since the last inspection of the window, we cannot say if these parts had failed since the previous inspection, or if disrepair had been missed. The landlord arranged to complete the repair on 31 January 2025. This was within its policy timescale of 20 working days from the inspection.
However, the appointment did not go ahead due to staff sickness. The landlord accepted that it should have informed the resident that the appointment needed to be cancelled, but did not. The cancelled appointment caused the resident inconvenience, and there was a delay of around 2 weeks in the repairs process as the contractor needed to arrange another appointment. It paid the resident £30 compensation for the missed appointment. This was in line with its compensation policy, and in our opinion, it was proportionate to the impact of the failing.
The resident was not at home for the appointment on 12 February 2025. This was outside of the landlord’s control. The appointment was rearranged for 25 February 2025. We did not see any evidence of avoidable delay in rearranging the appointment. The repair was successful. The landlord confirmed with the resident that she was happy with the repair and offered to inspect it. These were appropriate actions to ensure it had achieved a final fix.
While it took the landlord around 6 months to complete the repair, many of the delays were outside of its control. However, as we have explained above, there were some avoidable delays which cumulatively amounted to around 2 months. The landlord did not recognise the avoidable delays in the repairs process, which will have undermined the resident’s trust in it.
In addition, the resident felt that the landlord had blamed her for not providing access for some appointments. She told us she did not keep all the appointments due to difficult personal circumstances which included bereavement and an emergency medical procedure.
While the landlord was not responsible for delays caused by the resident not providing access on these occasions, it was aware of some of the resident’s personal circumstances. As such it should have done more to acknowledge this in its correspondence with her about the repairs, to ensure its response was empathetic to the circumstances of the case.
To put things right for the resident, we have awarded her additional compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with our remedies guidance, available on our webpage. The guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord has not acknowledged its failings.

Complaint	Concerns about staff conduct.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a code of conduct which applies to all staff and contractors working on its behalf. It says it is committed to the highest standards of integrity and accountability, and that anyone acting on its behalf must act in a professional and courteous manner.
The resident told the landlord that on around 14 October 2024, its surveyor and the contractor came to her home to assess her windows. She complained about their conduct. She said the contractor had belittled her, referred to her as a ‘little girl’, and accused her of breaking a window. She said the surveyor should have challenged the contractor’s behaviour, but did not.
At stage 1, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it was satisfied that the contractor did not have ill-intent in their interaction with the resident. However, after reviewing a recording that the resident provided at stage 2 of the complaints process, it agreed that the conduct of the contractor was not appropriate or acceptable. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s records do not show that it completed a sufficiently detailed investigation of the resident’s report. For example:
1. There was no evidence the landlord arranged to take a full statement from the resident. This was a missed opportunity to gather information and demonstrate that it was taking the matter seriously, and doing a fair investigation.
2. The landlord requested the surveyor’s account of the contractor’s behaviour during the interaction. This was reasonable. However, the resident had also complained about the surveyor’s inaction during the incident. The landlord should have gone further to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the surveyor’s inaction and assessed whether it was satisfied the surveyor acted appropriately. It did not do this.
3. As the landlord was not the direct employer of the contractor’s operative, it should have notified the contractor of the resident’s concerns as soon as it was made, so it could investigate. We did not see any evidence it did this.
Although the landlord agreed that the contractor’s behaviour was not acceptable at stage 2 of the complaints process, some of its phrasing did not demonstrate its impartiality. For example, it said it could see how the resident ‘may have interpreted’ the contractor’s actions. This partially put the onus on the resident, which was not reasonable, as the landlord had accepted fault.
The landlord only partly upheld the complaint. While the landlord said it did not believe the contractor’s comments were ill-intentioned, it had accepted that they were inappropriate. In light of this, partially upholding the complaint may have led the resident to feel that it had not taken the complaint seriously. It did not demonstrate that it was taking a zero-tolerance approach to poor conduct, in line with the commitments made in its code of conduct.
The landlord agreed to give feedback about the incident to its contract management lead and the contractor, and to appoint a different contractor to complete the repair. These were appropriate steps to put things right for the resident. However, although we asked it to, the landlord did not provide evidence that it did provide feedback to the contractor as agreed. This was a failing, either in the landlord’s record keeping, or because it did not complete its agreed follow-up actions.
To put things right for the resident, we have awarded compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with our compensation guidance, available on our website. Awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to fully put things right for the resident.

Complaint	Cockroach infestation
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a pest control policy which sets out its approach to pest infestations. The policy recognises that cockroaches can spread quickly and infestations carry health risks. Under its policy the landlord is responsible for treating cockroach infestations in both communal areas and individual properties.
The landlord’s records show that it was aware of a cockroach infestation affecting multiple properties in the resident’s block since at least September 2023. At times, the infestation affected the resident’s property. At other times, other properties and the communal area were affected but there was no infestation in the resident’s home. The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord, explaining that the infestation had a significant impact on the emotional wellbeing of the resident. For example, she felt unable to do food preparation in her home.
A robust approach is needed to treat cockroach infestations. Best practice can include:
1. Targeted insecticide treatments in both individual homes and communal areas, delivered in a coordinated way to prevent cockroaches moving between properties.
2. Advice to residents on preventing and managing infestations, including steps to reduce food sources.
3. Pest‑proofing measures, such as sealing gaps or damaged tiles.
The landlord employed pest control contractors to address the issue using gel treatments throughout the relevant period. Overall, it was responsive to the resident’s reports of infestation in her home, and offered appointments and treatments in a reasonable timeframe. The resident was not always available for appointments. This was outside the landlord’s control.
The resident complained that the landlord was not treating the communal areas of the block. Although the landlord said that treatments were taking place, it could have done more to investigate her concerns and provide specific information about the dates the communal areas had been treated, to reassure her that the infestation was being managed effectively.
The landlord’s records suggest that it was not satisfied that its treatment program in the block between October 2023 and October 2024 was effective in resolving the infestation. The evidence during this period indicated that the landlord was not taking a sufficiently proactive approach to the infestation. For example:
1. A member of staff asked the contractor for the scope of works, including whether communal areas were being treated. This indicated not all relevant staff had a clear understanding of the treatment the landlord had arranged.
2. There was limited correspondence between the landlord and the contractor, suggesting limited oversight of the treatment programme.
3. Contractors expressed concern that failure to access some of the properties may have reduced the effectiveness of the treatment programme. The records showed that there were significant access issues. For example, on 31 October 2024, the contractor recorded 16 ‘no access’ appointments, around a third of the properties in the block. The landlord should have monitored the treatments closely, so that it could quickly act on access issues. Its records did not show that it did this.
From around October 2024 the landlord took a more proactive approach to managing the infestation, including:
1. Appointing a different contractor.
2. Asking the new contractor to provide dates for a block‑wide survey, so it could support access arrangements with residents.
3. Seeking advice on whether alternative treatment methods were appropriate.
4. Putting up information about treatment in communal areas of the building to support access to residents’ homes.
5. Monitoring treatments regularly, and contacting residents it knew were less likely to give access for treatments.
6. Challenging the contractor when it did not enter all the properties, instead doing some surveys from residents’ doorsteps.
7. Improving cleaning services in the block, which could support the treatment programme.
These were positive steps to improve the rigor of its approach. However, the landlord did not explore all the options available to it. For example:
1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, residents must give access for works. As such, the landlord could have considered whether it was proportionate to take legal action for any properties where it consistently did not get access to carry out pest control treatment. There was no evidence it considered this.
2. The landlord’s pest control policy says it will consider pest‑proofing works. The resident asked about proofing, but there is no evidence the landlord considered or responded to her request. It is likely this was frustrating for her.
3. The policy also states that the landlord will give residents advice on managing pests in their homes. It is not clear if the landlord did this.
The cockroach infestation in the block has not been resolved and continues to cause the resident distress. To recognise the impact of the failings described above, we have awarded compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Our guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings.
The landlord has also been ordered to set out its position on the pest control treatments in the block.

Complaint	The resident’s rehousing application.
Finding	Service failure

The resident told the landlord that she needed to move for medical reasons. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy sets out its approach to resident’s requests for rehousing. The landlord gives eligible residents priority banding ranging from A to D, with A being the highest priority for rehousing.
Under the landlord’s lettings and allocations policy, a resident may be allocated a higher band if they have a medical need which is adversely affected by their current housing. The landlord uses an external provider to assess this.
We are not medical experts. It is outside of our remit to determine if the resident’s medical circumstances met the landlord’s criteria for medical priority banding. We have considered whether the landlord acted in line with its lettings and allocations policy, and its communication with the resident about her request.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had previously applied for a transfer on medical grounds. On that occasion, the resident was not awarded medical priority. As such,it was appropriate that it advised the resident that she could apply on medical grounds if her circumstances had changed. The landlord’s advice to provide as much medical evidence as she could was reasonable. It also provided her with a guide on rehousing options. This was in line with its allocations and lettings policy.
The landlord sent the resident a housing transfer application form on 6 August 2024. The resident says that she returned the form in around August 2024, but the landlord lost it. In correspondence, the landlord said it did not receive the form. With the evidence available we cannot determine whether the landlord received the form or not.
The landlord said that the resident sent supporting information for the application on around 21 November 2024. Its records show that it requested the information from the resident in the intervening months, which was appropriate. As the resident agreed she would send more information, it was reasonable of the landlord to wait for this information before submitting her application to the medical assessor.
Shortly after she sent the landlord some medical information, she had an emergency medical procedure. The landlord asked her to provide more information about the procedure before it submitted the form to its medical assessor. While this caused a delay in assessing the application, it was a reasonable request, as the change in the resident’s medical circumstances may have strengthened her application.
The resident provided more information on 5 December 2024. In its housing transfer procedure document, the landlord says it will give residents the outcome of a medical application to move within 2 weeks. In the resident’s case it took around 4 weeks for the landlord to tell her the outcome of the application. The landlord’s records show that this was due to a minor administrative error that needed to be rectified between teams. The delay will have been frustrating for the resident, but overall, it was not excessive.
The landlord’s medical advisor declined the resident’s application to move on medical grounds. As the application was declined, the resident’s housing application was awarded a band ‘D’, which is its band for residents without an identified rehousing need. The landlord activated the application promptly.
The landlord has an appeals process which gives residents opportunity to appeal a decision made under its lettings and allocations policy. The gave the resident information about its appeals process when she told it that she was unhappy with the outcome of her rehousing application. This ensured she knew how to challenge the decision if she wanted to. The landlord says it has not received an appeal request.
The resident told the landlord on more than one occasion that it should contact her GP to get more information about her medical circumstances. This is not part of the landlord’s process. However, it did not tell the resident this until after the application had been declined. This was a failing. If the landlord had told the resident it would not contact her GP before the application was submitted, she would have been able to decide if she wanted to submit more medical evidence.
After the resident’s medical application was refused, she asked the landlord to log a complaint. The landlord told her that she should log the complaint using an online portal. This was not appropriate advice. The landlord should have logged the new issue for the resident rather than asking her to do this. In asking her to log the case, it created an unnecessary barrier and delay in her access to the complaints process.
Overall, while we saw no evidence that the failings discussed above had a permanent outcome on the resident’s rehousing application, they will have been frustrating for her and caused her inconvenience.
We have awarded the resident compensation in recognition of these failings. The compensation awarded aligns with our remedies guidance, which says awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord has not acknowledged failings in its handling of an issue, but this did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of the landlord’s complaints handling. The scheme defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents’.
We have seen evidence that in July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about her window repair. She explained that the issue had been ongoing for 2 years, and asked for compensation. Although it was sent to the landlord through an enquiry form, rather than a complaint form, it met the definition of a complaint so the landlord should have treated it as such.
Instead, the landlord dealt with the issue, as well as making an offer of compensation, outside of the complaints process. It is acknowledged that this was possible resolution-focused, but this was not appropriate. By dealing with the matter outside of its complaints process:
1. The landlord missed an opportunity to engage with the resident’s concerns and see what action, if any, was necessary.
2. The resident was not given the opportunity to escalate her concerns, and was ultimately delayed in referring her concerns to us for further consideration.
3. The landlord missed an opportunity to assess its handling of the issue, and identify any service improvements or learning it could take from this.
We have awarded the resident compensation in recognition of the impact of this complaint handling failure by the landlord. The award aligns with our compensation guidance, as discussed above. Our remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord may have adversely affected the resident, but have not had a permanent impact.
The timescales for complaints responses set out in the landlord’s complaints policy align with those in the Code. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays at both stages of the complaints process. At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord told the resident it may need to extend its response deadline. Where a complaint is complex, the Code allows landlords to extend complaints responses by up to 10 working days at the first stage of the complaints process, and 20 working days at the second stage of the complaints process.
The resident’s complaint was unusually complex as it was about several issues, and the landlord extended its complaints response timescale at both stages of the complaints process. However, it did not meet its revised deadlines. The landlord acknowledged a total delay of 18 working days during the first stage of the complaints process, and 1 working day at the second stage of the complaints process. This will have been frustrating for the resident, undermining her trust in the landlord.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £100 in compensation in recognition of the likely impact of the delays in the complaint handling process. This was a reasonable offer which was proportionate to the impact of the delays, so no further compensation has been awarded for this element of the complaint.

Learning

The resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction which met the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint. The landlord did not always progress these appropriately through its complaints process.
In addition, on at least one occasion it advised the resident to log a concern in a specific way. This did not align with the landlord’s policy, which appropriately allows residents to make complaints in different ways, including direct contact with a member of staff. The landlord may wish to do refresher training with relevant staff to further embed its complaints policy and procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure it monitors all actions it agrees during the complaints process to completion, and keeps a full record of this.