Abri Group Limited (202214926)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214926

Abri Group Limited

19 December 2024

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:
1. The information within the Subject Access Request (SAR) and the data stored on the resident’s record.
2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. Outstanding defects.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. In February 2022 she purchased a share in a new build house.
The property was constructed by a third-party developer and was in the 2-year defect liability period (DLP) when the resident purchased it. During the DLP, defects raised are for the developer of the building to repair under the terms of their warranty.
The developer attended the property on 21 February 2022 and the resident reported several defects which were included on the snag list. Residents of the landlord are informed about the DLP and are advised that they can report defects directly to the landlord. Between February and June 2022, the resident reported several defects to the landlord.
One 20 June 2022, the developer’s contractor attended to address various repairs which resulted in damage to the resident’s door frame blind and damage to the glass corner of the TV unit. The outcome of this complaint was provided on 15 July 2022 in which compensation value of £225 was provided by the landlord.
On 22 June 2022 the resident told the landlord the developer’s contractor had attended her property that day and asked to take photos of some of the defects. The resident told the landlord that the contractor used an accusatory tone with her and walked out of the property slamming the door adding the contractor’s behaviour was inappropriate. She asked the landlord to ensure the operative did not attend her property again and ensure she was notified of all appointments. The resident also stated the appointment was made without prior arrangement.
The resident reported a further incident to the landlord on 5 September 2022. She said:
1. The contractor’s operative, that she asked not to attend her property, attended that day.
2. She had not confirmed this appointment with the landlord.
3. The landlord had not come back to her about why this operative attended her property on 22 June 2022. The landlord only addressed the contractor damaging her blind in her previous complaint, not the conduct of the contractor.
4. She wanted to know why she had not been informed that the contractor had requested the landlord had a representative present at appointments.
5. She asked to make a SAR.
6. She wanted the landlord to provide a repair plan for the outstanding defects which included the garden gate, the toilet lock, and the front door.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a new complaint on 11 October 2022 about the issues she reported on 5 September 2022. She said no repairs or visits were to take place until further instruction from herself.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022. It:
1. Accepted and apologised:
  1. It did not fully investigate the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s operative.
  2. It failed to ensure the developer’s contractor did not schedule that operative to attend the property.
  3. It did not make the resident aware of the allegations made against her by the contractor. It said whilst it believed them to be unfounded and it was not taking any action against the resident, it should have allowed the resident to provide evidence so it could have investigated the situation.
  4. For causing delays in her complaint being accepted.
  5. For its poor communication.
2. Arranged for a small gift to be delivered to the resident to apologise for the delays with its complaints handling.
3. Said it would review the handling of the resident’s previous complaint and take appropriate action.
4. Had paused all defect works on the property due to the resident’s request. It asked her to confirm when she wanted to go ahead with the works and to provide dates on when it could attend. It said it would monitor the outstanding defects to ensure they are carried out within a reasonable timescale and standard.
5. Would arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss using an alternative contractor to complete the remaining defects.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 November 2022. She asked for the review to be conducted by a panel. She said there has been delays to the outstanding defects. She asked the landlord to:
1. Send an apology from the organisation as a whole and from individual staff in regard to the comments made about her in the SAR she requested.
2. Write a letter that she could give to her employers to say there was no evidence to support the allegations that were made by the developer’s contractor.
3. Write a letter to all contractors and departments involved to clear her name and their perception of her.
4. Remove the inappropriate emails and any photos of her from its records.
5. Pay compensation for her time spent making complaints and chasing repairs, her legal costs, time she had taken off work, and for the emotional distress caused.
6. Confirm the operative she complained about would not attend her property.
7. Confirm it remained the point of contact for repairs, removed any markers on the property and the need for a representative to accompany the contractor.
8. Provide training for its staff.
9. Make changes to its complaint’s acknowledgement letter and resolution template.
The resident and landlord attended a panel meeting on 12 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 December 2022. It said:
1. It would not ask individual staff members to write an apology letter, however, each individual had been spoken to and would be given necessary training.
2. It had attached a letter that could be given to the resident’s employers as requested.
3. Although it felt the resident’s fears were unfounded it agreed to remove her photo from its records. It agreed to restrict and mark its records containing the comments about the resident as ‘contested and subject to erasure request’. It would also ask the developer and the contractor to do the same.
4. It had not put any markers on the resident’s account.
5. It would consider compensation and asked the resident to provide a list of costs she had incurred due to the delays in completing the defects.
6. For it to pursue an apology from the contractor in relation to the incident in June 2022, it asked the resident to provide the evidence she told them she had, so the contractor could fully review the incident and respond appropriately.
7. The operative will not attend her property again, and where possible it would use an alternative independent contractor and remove the need for a representative to be present.
8. It agreed that contractors would not contact the resident.
9. All its customer care staff have received data protection training.
10. It apologised and offered £350 compensation which was broken down as:
  1. £50 for the delay in accepting the stage 1 complaint.
  2. £50 for not addressing the email about the altercation with the contractor’s operative in the resident’s previous complaint.
  3. £250 for the comments contained within the SAR.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

On 3 April 2023 the landlord offered the resident £2000 compensation for the time the resident had taken off work due to the defect works. On 13 April 2023 the resident asked for further compensation. On 5 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it would not consider further redress regarding that stage 2 complaint.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 11 September 2023 about the length of time to complete defects and that it had not communicated its final compensation offer in relation to its stage 2 complaint dated 20 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 September 2023 and said it had told the resident on 5 September 2023 it would not revisit its stage 2 response and the compensation offered remained available. On 6 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2023 and said its head of development customer care would be in touch with the resident separately about its previous stage 2 complaint response.
The resident approached the Ombudsman as she felt the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the costs she had incurred, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 6 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord if it would reconsider its offer of £2000 compensation. The landlord responded on 13 June 2024 and said it would not increase this offer.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that some of the complaint issues are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident raised concerns regarding the information within the SAR and the data stored on her record. Any complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Under paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme this aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will therefore not form part of this investigation.
The resident believes the comments revealed to her in the SAR constituted slander and threatened to damage her professional and personal reputation. The Ombudsman cannot determine if slander had taken place or if there had been reputational damage. The resident would need to seek legal advice about such concerns. In line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. However, we will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
In relation to the complaint about staff conduct. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of its staff or its contractor’s staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. If the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than an individual.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has made several complaints to the landlord. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord on 11 October 2022. This investigation will investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from June 2022 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in December 2022. This will include any actions the landlord said it would take in its complaint responses, which took place after the expiry of its complaint’s procedure. For any subsequent complaints that have gone through the landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would need to open a separate investigation at the resident’s request.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her reports of staff conduct had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The landlord’s customer relations procedure explains that where complaints are about the conduct of its staff, an investigation will be carried out with the support of its HR team. The procedure goes on to explain that the landlord will not be able to share the findings of the investigation with the resident but will offer the resident reassurance on the depth of its investigation and confidence in the outcome of the investigation.

Incident that occurred in June 2022

When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, it would be expected that the landlord carries out a thorough investigation into these concerns and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps to mitigate any future instances. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether the accusations made by the resident were indeed true, because the circumstances of the incident were disputed. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was restricted in its actions as the operative was employed by a third-party contractor. The Ombudsman has not been able to obtain evidence from the developer or its contractor as they are not members of the Scheme. The landlord has provided evidence of some of its communication with the developer, however, there is information missing from its records such as evidence of when it held meetings about the incident and what was discussed. This was a record keeping failure.
The resident reported the incident with the developer’s contractor to the landlord on 22 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 24 June 2022. Although the resident said her email was not about the ‘interaction’ with the operative, the landlord acted inappropriately by not investigating the operative’s conduct in line with its customer relations procedure. The landlord failed to communicate and discuss with the resident any potential risks, whether it would uphold her request, and what action it would take to ensure this incident would not happen again. This was a failing which led to the resident feeling unsupported by the landlord.
In June 2022 the developer’s contractor requested a landlord representative was present at all future appointments. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to this. The Ombudsman cannot see this would have caused the resident any detriment, it would have prevented further incidents and ensured the outstanding defects were resolved as quickly as possible. The landlord notified the resident about the contractor’s request on 2 September 2022. The evidence provided shows this was the first appointment the contractor was due to attend after it had made the request. Although the landlord may have felt it was not necessary to inform the resident prior to this date as it had no concerns about the resident’s behaviour, its customer behaviour and visiting procedure states it will inform a resident within 5 working days about any indicator or restriction in place. The landlord acted inappropriately by not discussing the restriction with the resident in June 2022. This was also a missed opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
On 5 September 2022 the resident reported that the same operative had attended her property despite her request for him not to. The landlord acted reasonably by informing the resident on 8 September 2022 it would investigate this with the developer. The landlord said it would update the resident with the developer’s response, however, it failed to give an estimated timescale for its response. This resulted in the resident making a formal complaint on 11 October 2022. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 27 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s operative were not investigated appropriately and that its communication had been poor. It provided the developers response to why it had sent the contractor on 5 September 2022 when it had been asked not to attend. However, it failed to answer the resident’s concerns about why the contractor attended her property on 22 June 2022. It also failed to communicate to the resident what action it would take to alleviate her concerns about further incidents with the operative.
At the stage 2 panel meeting on 12 December 2022, and its letter to the resident dated 6 January 2023, the landlord agreed to arrange a meeting with the developer and its contractor to discuss the resident’s case and seek answers to the resident’s questions. However, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence that this meeting went ahead or that it communicated its findings to the resident.
In the panel meeting the landlord acted reasonably by stating it would no longer allow the developers contractor to attend the resident’s property and it would arrange for an alternative contractor to carry out the remaining defect works. The Ombudsman felt this resolved the resident’s concerns about the developer’s contractor and having to have a representative present at appointments. These actions were reasonable and in line with good practice and customer service.

Staff comments in the SAR

On 5 November 2022, in her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about comments its staff made that were recorded in the SAR. In the panel meeting and its stage 2 complaint response in December 2022 the landlord apologised for these comments. The landlord acted appropriately by providing feedback to the relevant managers to speak to the individual members of staff. It also provided data protection training to its all its customer care staff as a result of matters identified in the resident’s case and provided the resident with a dedicated person to contact.
The resident told the landlord she wanted an apology from the individual members of staff. The landlord acted appropriately by stating it would not do this and provided an overall apology from a senior member of staff. This is in line with the landlord’s customer relations procedure and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which states communication with the resident should not generally identify individual members of staff or contractors as their actions are undertaken on behalf of the landlord.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the comments from its staff in the SAR. It acknowledged its mistakes, apologised and offered £250 compensation for the distress caused to the resident. It showed learning by providing feedback to the individual staff and providing training.
However, in relation to the incident in June 2022 the landlord failed to effectively investigate the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s operative. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping, and the landlord failed to carry out the actions it promised in its complaint responses. Although the landlord apologised for its failings, the landlord should have considered the impact these service failings had on the resident and considered a compensation payment in line with its putting things right policy. The policy states it will pay between £100 and £199.99 based on there being a medium impact on the resident, therefore the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.
Taking all factors into consideration the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding defects

Between February 2022 and November 2022, the resident reported several internal and external defects at the property. There was evidence of the landlord forwarding the reports to the developer on receipt from the resident. However, there was no evidence to show that the landlord ensured that the snags identified in the initial inspection of the property were completed by the developer within an agreed timescale. This is demonstrated by the fact that the issues highlighted with the garden gate, toilet lock, front door, patio doors, and external flue cover remained outstanding several months later. The fact that issues identified in the landlord’s initial survey remained outstanding several months later suggests that there was a lack of oversight by the landlord from the outset to ensure that the developer addressed the defects within a reasonable timescale.
Between June and September 2022, the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for updates on what it was going to do about the defects. The landlord responded to the resident on every occasion within a reasonable timescale and said it would chase the developer. On 8 September 2022 the landlord said it had been pursuing the developer but acknowledged it had not kept the resident fully updated and apologised for this. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident about the defects. It failed to provide her with any timescales for when the defects should be completed. This left her in a position of not knowing when the issues would be resolved, which resulted in her chasing updates.
Given the fact that several issues were reported to the landlord over a number of months, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken a holistic approach when following up with the resident and the developer about the defects reported. Doing so would have given the parties a clear understanding about what had been reported and what actions, if any, were being taken to address them. Had the landlord been monitoring the developer’s progress, it would have been able to offer the resident updates as expected and provide prompt resolutions to the outstanding issues.
On 14 September 2022 the developer told the landlord it would not send its contractor to the resident’s property until the complaint about the contractor’s operative had been resolved. The landlord only became aware of this communication after the resident reported a missed appointment for an emergency repair due to an outstanding defect. Although the landlord acted appropriately by arranging its own repairs team to attend the emergency repair within a reasonable timescale. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident that the developer was not completing works on her property, and that this could cause delays. The landlord acted inappropriately by not communicating effectively with the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022 the landlord said it would meet with the resident to discuss using an alternative contractor to complete the outstanding defects. The evidence shows the landlord continued to communicate with the developer about it completing the defects, before contacting an alternative contractor on 29 November 2022. The landlord acted proactively in trying to resolve the defects for the resident and mitigate the issues it was having with the developer and the developer’s contractors. This was customer focused and in line with its customer service agreements.
It is recognised the resident had genuine reasons for delaying some of the defect works due to the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. However, her actions did contribute to some of the delays in the defects being completed. For example, in August 2022 the resident failed to respond to the developer to confirm an appointment, she stated no repairs could be carried out between 9 October and 5 November 2022, and in December 2022 she stated she could not take 2 days off work and then asked for the remaining works to be carried out on 26 January 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by working around the resident’s availability. The evidence shows that on multiple occasions it asked the developer, its own repairs team and contractor to book in multiple operatives for the same appointment to minimise the disruption to the resident.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. The evidence provided showed contradicting completion dates for the defects and there was limited records of its communication with the developer and contractors. This was a failure by the landlord.
In the response to the complaint the landlord’s decision to uphold both stage 1 and 2 complaints was appropriate given its handling of the defects. It acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication and the delays in resolving the outstanding defects. Although all of the defects were not completed by the end of the complaint procedure, the landlord showed learning as it had employed an external contractor to complete the defects, it provided the resident with a dedicated person to manage the defects and arranged to visit the resident to discuss a plan of works.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to consider compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident. Its offer of £2000 compensation for the costs the resident incurred due to the delays was significantly higher than the amounts listed in its putting things right policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
Taking all factors into consideration the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the outstanding defects.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its customer relations procedure sets out two options for complaints to be reviewed at stage 2. The complaint can either be reviewed by a customer complaints panel or it can be reviewed by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
The landlord’s putting things right guidance states a gesture of goodwill payment will be considered based on the impact the service failure had on the customer. The guidance sets out suitable sums that may be offered by the landlord depending on the impact of the service failure.
On 5 September 2022 the resident raised concerns with the way the landlord handled her reports of staff conduct, her previous complaint and the outstanding defects. The landlord responded to all the issues, in writing, and within a reasonable timescale. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have asked the resident if she wanted to make a formal complaint. Responding to these issues outside its complaints process meant the resident did not have the opportunity to review the decision and it delayed her from being able to bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
The resident asked to raise a complaint to the landlord on 11 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022, which was just outside its target response time of 10 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by communicating with the resident about extending its response timescale, and although it did not initially provide reasons for the extension, as soon as the resident asked, it responded immediately.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 November 2022 and asked for the complaint to be reviewed by a complaints panel. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 9 November 2022 and the panel met on 12 December 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 December 2022, this was 30 working days later, which was outside its target of 20 working days. However, during the intervening period the landlord had kept the resident informed about the progress of her complaint and both parties agreed a mutually convenient date for the panel meeting. Therefore, the overall time taken by the landlord to respond was reasonable.
The landlord provided the resident with a written response to the questions she raised in the panel meeting on 6 January 2023. This was 17 working days later. As the landlord had to respond to a number of issues and the Christmas period would have impacted on its response times, this was a reasonable timescale. The response showed the landlord wanted to support the resident and resolve the complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would consider an offer of further compensation and asked the resident to provide a list of the costs she had incurred. The resident provided this on 18 February 2023. The landlord responded on 3 April 2023 and offered the resident a further £2000 compensation. This was 42 working days later. Although it would have taken time for the landlord to review the information and make a decision, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s email, it did not keep her updated or provide an estimated timescale for its response. This resulted in the resident chasing updates.
On 4 September 2023 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about the amount of compensation offered for the delay in the defects being completed. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and said it would not review its offer of compensation. The landlord provided evidence that it contacted the resident at stage 2 to discuss its reasons. Although the landlord should have also provided its response on this matter in writing, to ensure its decision was clear, this showed it was taking steps to improve its communication and its relationship with the resident.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord accepting the complaint, however, overall it communicated well with the resident, it responded to all her complaint issues and considered her request for further compensation. The landlord acknowledged, apologised and offered the resident a total of £50 compensation and a box of chocolates for its complaints handling failures. The Ombudsman feels the redress offered was proportionate to the failures identified in this report and was in line with the landlord’s putting things right policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
Taking all factors into consideration the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the information within the SAR and the data stored on the resident’s record is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of outstanding defects.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A member of the senior leadership team must provide the apology to the resident.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. If the landlord has not already done so it should confirm to the resident that the £2350 compensation it offered as part of its complaint responses is still available.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its procedures in relation to the logging and remedying of defects in new build properties. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed, and its contact with residents, the developer, and contractors. It is also to ensure the landlord provides clear and accurate information about repairing responsibilities to shared ownership leaseholders. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and provide a copy of its findings.

Recommendations

The resident continued to report defects to the landlord after her complaint. If there are outstanding defects the landlord should continue to communicate with the resident to discuss what action, if any, is being taken and provide her with a clear timescale as to when to expect those actions to be taken.