Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Basildon Borough Council (202334594)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334594

Basildon Borough Council

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs to the property.
    2. Damage caused by its contactors to her possessions.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in 1998. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident has a number of health conditions known to the landlord including scoliosis, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 December 2022. She reported that the skylight in her property did not close fully and was letting in cold air into the property. She said this was affecting her health and led her to sleep downstairs. The resident also raised concerns over her TV aerial. She explained it needed replacing, however the landlord’s contractor had not removed the heavy doors to allow access to it. The landlord attended the property on 30 December 2022 to make temporary repairs to the skylight.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 26 January 2023. It said:
    1. The skylight was not clicking shut. It had taped around the window as a temporary measure and scheduled a further appointment on 5 January 2023. At this appointment its contractor explained it was likely the skylight needed to be replaced, and a further appointment was arranged for 26 January 2023 for the contractor to inspect it and take measurements if necessary.
    2. The TV aerial remained the responsibility of the resident, so it would not carry out any works to it.
  4. The resident telephoned the landlord on 7 June 2023 to complain about its response to the TV aerial and skylight issues. She stated her aerial had not been working since roofers had attended around Christmas 2022 to repair the skylight. While temporary repairs were carried out to the skylight involving it being taped shut, further repairs were needed involving scaffolding. However, this did not occur. The resident added that every time she attempted to contact the contractor, it terminated the calls.
  5. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 June 2023 which was similar in content to the earlier stage 1 response of 26 January 2023. The response said additionally:
    1. While its contractor explained the skylight needed to be renewed, it was unable to gain access when it tried to attend to measure up the skylight at the end of January 2023. A further appointment was scheduled for 10 July 2023 to address the matter.
    2. In relation to the TV aerial, the landlord did not carry out any roofing works to the property. While the resident stated she saw people climbing on the roof, the landlord explained this was not it or its contractor. It reiterated that the TV aerial remained the responsibility of the resident so it would not carry out any works to it.
  6. Following the resident contacting the landlord to explain she remained dissatisfied, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2023. It maintained it had no record of either it or a contractor climbing on the resident’s roof to carry out any work. This meant it did not damage the TV aerial. It reiterated that the issue remained the responsibility of the resident to repair, as it was not a communal aerial. The stage 2 response did not address the issue of the skylight.
  7. The resident continued to contact the landlord about several different issues following receiving the stage 2 response. She explained that while she had attempted to raise complaints with the landlord previously by phone, it did not open complaints, and when it did it closed them as resolved without letting her know the outcome.
  8. In response to further complaints from the resident about the skylight, concerns about her heating, advice about removing Artex, and damage to her personal possessions which were raised on 5 January 2024, the landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 29 January 2024. It explained:
    1. There was a delay between December 2022 and July 2023 in it addressing the skylight. It explained that this was partly due to “access clearance issues preventing work from being completed”. Its tenancy team were working with the resident to resolve the matter, and once clearance was completed it would arrange a date to get the skylight replaced. This would require it to erect scaffolding at the rear of the property, where there was currently an unauthorised lean–to conservatory. An appointment had been arranged for 2 February 2024.
    2. While the resident had mentioned several other repairs, it had not received any reports of these previously. When it attended the property on 2 February 2024 it would assess the other repairs and schedule appointments to carry any works needed.
    3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water, there had been several reports of issues raised by the resident, which it had attended to each time and resolved. In September 2023 it had deemed the boiler to be beyond economical repair. It had planned to upgrade the boiler system to a more economical system, but it was unable to do this as there was “access restrictions caused by the high level of possessions” in the property. It had therefore replaced the boiler with a like–for–like model in October 2023.
    4. It had never suggested to the resident that it was safe to remove Artex, due to the risks involved. It had strict health and safety procedures to follow where there was presence of asbestos.
    5. There was no record of any damages to the resident’s personal items including her dishwasher and gramophone. If the resident provided any further information, its repairs team would investigate the matter.
  9. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she wants the landlord to repair the skylight and her aerial without disturbing her lean-to. She has also requested compensation for the damage caused to her possessions.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. Since referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has continued to communicate with the landlord. In addition to raising continued concerns about the TV aerial, she has also raised concerns about the landlord gaining access to her property, including her loft and shed, and clearing out her personal possessions. As the landlord reportedly advised that it would charge her for this, and she was not able to pay, she considered she was being unfairly treated by it. She also explained that after the landlord replaced the skylight on 31 May 2024, she continued to have issues with a draught, as it had not been put back correctly leaving 2-inch gap.
  2. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that while it maintains it did not cause the damage to the resident’s TV aerial, it would attend to it as a one-off gesture of goodwill. However, going forward the matter would remain the responsibility of the resident. It also confirmed it had addressed the issues with the skylight.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has also asked this Service to consider her complaint about a cracked toilet, missing basin, and damaged kitchen cupboards and tiles. During a recent conversation with the Ombudsman, she explained these issues occurred when she initially moved into the property following a mutual exchange in 1998. Although the landlord did set out, in its revised stage 2 response, that it would assess any further repairs when it gained access to the property, there is no evidence these issues were reported to it within a reasonable time of the events having originally occurred. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (usually 12 months), or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this investigation has been limited to the repairs to the skylight, TV aerial and heating. The Ombudsman has, however, made a recommendation at the end of this report.
  2. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it obtained a court injunction order against the resident for the purpose of accessing the property to clean/clear it and to carry out essential works. It has advised that, at the time of writing, it is in the process of enforcing this order. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to stop the landlord from enforcing it, and she mentioned that none of her neighbours had been treated in the same manner. The Ombudsman is unable to ask a landlord not to enforce a court injunction. Should the resident wish to challenge the matter, she may obtain her own legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property

  1. The tenant’s handbook sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining:
    1. The structure and outside of the building.
    2. Fittings for gas, electricity and water.
    3. Basins, sinks, baths and toilets.
    4. Heating and hot water facilities.
  2. The tenant’s handbook confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs of shared TV aerials and communal sockets, but that the resident is responsible for TV aerials and sockets “owned by the resident”.
  3. The handbook also states that the landlord is responsible for window frames, external sills and locks and restrictors. The resident is responsible for glazing (unless linked to an incident of crime) as well as internal decorations.
  4. The tenant’s handbook sets out that the landlord assigns 1 of 2 priorities to all repairs. Priority 1 repairs refer to emergencies where there is a danger to people or property. It will attend within 2 hours, except in the case of gas heating or gas hot water breakdowns where it will attend within 24 hours. The landlord refers to all non-emergency repairs as priority 2 repairs, which are booked “at the convenience of the tenant”. The handbook adds that all work should be completed within 28 days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that, in circumstances where it has failed to meet residents’ expectations or its own standard of service, it may consider compensation. The level of award is linked to the impact that its failure has ultimately led to. Low impact is defined as where the resident has not suffered significant inconvenience or distress because of the landlord’s failure. Medium impact is where the service has “markedly failed to meet the required standards”, including repeated failures of it addressing a low impact event. The award for medium impact ranges from £50 to £200, depending on the landlord’s level of responsibility for the issue.

Skylight

  1. The resident initially contacted the landlord on 21 December 2022 about her skylight. The landlord’s internal notes show that it attended on 30 December 2022 following further calls from the resident on 28 December 2022. It noted that the winder chain of the skylight was not functioning correctly. This led to the skylight not closing properly and letting cold air into and heat out of the property. The landlord applied a temporary repair by taping around the window to minimise the cold air coming into the property. It noted that a follow–up appointment/assessment was required, and this was scheduled for 5 January 2023.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately, and it attended to the repair in line with its policy timescale for a priority 2 repair. While the resident explained her medical condition meant she could not sleep upstairs, the repair was not an emergency. The positioning of the skylight – which was accessible via the resident’s roof – meant it was not a security concern if it could not be shut. The resident informed the landlord that the draught posed an increased risk to her health due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s response to the matter within 3 working days, with a further appointment arranged after another 5 working days to allow for the festive period, was reasonable and took into account the potential risk posed to the resident’s health.
  3. The landlord’s correspondence show that a further appointment was scheduled for 26 January 2023 to measure up the skylight. This followed on from the appointment on 5 January 2023 when its contractor indicated the skylight needed to be replaced. However, the landlord was unable to gain access to measure up. While the landlord’s correspondence shows there had been historical issues with access to the property, there was a gap of more than 4 months to the next mention of the skylight which needed replacing. This followed on from the resident having raised a complaint. This delay was excessive, and it is unclear whether or when the matter would have been progressed if the resident had not complained.
  4. The landlord was aware the skylight needed replacing in January 2023. Although it was unable to gain access at the end of January 2023, there was no indication that it made any further attempts to access the property and replace the skylight after that appointment. The landlord’s notes showed that to access the skylight it needed to go onto the resident’s roof, which required the use of scaffolding at the back of the property as it was terraced. The landlord has provided pictures of the resident’s rear garden which showed that it was not clear. In addition to a large quantity of items there was also cat/dog faeces. This would have impacted the contractor’s ability to attend and erect the scaffolding to carry out the work, even if it was possible to gain access to the resident’s property.
  5. However, the absence of any further recorded attempt by the landlord to attend to the repair between 25 January 2023 and 7 June 2023 was a failing by it. It would have been aware that the skylight needed replacing and that the repairs made in December 2022 were only temporary. The delay in attending to the skylight would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, particularly in view of her concerns about health impact. While the repair to the skylight had still not been completed by the time of the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process in January 2024, the landlord had been in touch with the resident since July 2023 to explain the reasons for this. Because of the lack of access, the landlord began the process of obtaining a court injunction which it obtained in April 2024.

TV aerial

  1. In addition to raising her concern about the skylight, the resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports about her TV aerial. She stated that the TV aerial had been damaged when she had people carrying out roofing repairs. The landlord explained to the resident that it had not carried out any repairs to the roof. It also referred to the TV aerial being the responsibility of the resident, not itself, as it was not a communal aerial. While the responsibility for the TV aerial was the resident’s according to the tenant’s handbook, it was appropriate for the landlord to undertake a check to see if it had carried out any repairs to the roof. This was because any such work, for which it was responsible, may have caused damage to the aerial. Under those circumstances it would then have been responsible for the repair.
  2. The landlord’s repair records do not show any roofing repairs for the property since November 2016. However, contained within the landlord’s repair records were 3 references of the TV aerial having been mentioned by the resident. These were in May 2020, December 2021 and April 2022. The notes for the first entry on 13 May 2020 simply noted the issue to be “repair her TV aerial”. The entry from 10 December 2021 noted that the TV aerial was affected when it rained, and that when this happened, the resident was unable to watch TV. The entry from 20 April 2022 noted that the aerial was affected by wind and bad weather. The landlord’s repair logs do not contain any engineer notes for any of these 3 instances. This would be in keeping with it having not attended to these reported repairs, on the basis that they were not the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. In addition to this, the landlord’s internal communication from 29 April 2021 stated that the resident had called the landlord at that time over the matter. It informed her that the aerial was not its responsibility and that she should claim on her insurance. The resident explained she did not have her own insurance. She also explained that in May 2020 someone had checked the guttering and the tiles on her roof, and her aerial had not worked properly since that time. The landlord’s repair logs contain no mention of any work being carried out at that time, which would have been during the first COVID-19 lockdown when landlord services were restricted to limited emergency work.
  4. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident on more than one occasion that the responsibility for the TV aerial did not lie with it. It advised her to claim on her own insurance, and while the resident explained that she did not have insurance, it was not obliged to provide the resident with its own insurance details for the matter. This was because there was no evidence that the issues with the TV aerial were caused by it or its contractors.

Heating and hot water

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident contacted it on several occasions in 2023 about her heating and hot water. The landlord’s records show concerns with the heating/hot water were raised on 23 March 2023, 19 April 2023, 22 April 2023, 24 April 2023, and 2 June 2023. The repair logs show that it attended on each occasion within 24 hours, in line with its policy timescale for emergency repairs. The repair records show that for the majority of these incidents the landlord resolved the matter on the first visit. The exception was for the incident on 22 April 2023, when a follow–up appointment was required, and this was arranged for 2 days later. The landlord explained that it needed to change a port valve, which was in a cupboard that was full, and it gave the resident time to clear it. The repair records show that during this time the resident had access to hot water via her immersion heater. Overall, the landlord’s response was appropriate as it ensured the resident was not without hot water and heating for an excessive time. It also demonstrated sensitivity and flexibility around the items stored in her property.  
  2. The landlord was unable to gain access at the end of June 2023 to carry out the annual boiler service. This was rescheduled on 1 September 2023, at which point the contractor identified that the boiler flue had been leaking. The contractor’s notes from this incident noted the repair was uneconomical and proposed replacing the existing boiler (which was 18 years old) with a combination boiler. This would have required the pipework in the property to be updated and re-routed, and so a boiler survey was required. The contemporaneous notes stated that while the resident had been left without heating or hot water, she had an electric shower, and she refused temporary heaters which were offered. As the flue had been leaking, the contractor shut off the gas supply to the boiler. This was an appropriate step to take, which took account of the landlord’s health and safety obligations and left the resident able to use any other gas-based appliances in the interim.
  3. The landlord’s repair logs show that it only carried out the boiler survey on 27 September 2023, just under 4 weeks after the resident’s gas supply to the boiler had been shut off. This survey identified that the condition of the property meant it was not possible to replace the boiler with a newer system requiring pipes to be re-routed. The landlord therefore installed the new like–for–like boiler on 6 October 2023. It explained that the delay in the survey being carried out was due to the resident not giving its contractor access when it attempted to visit the property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord made sufficient attempts to engage with the resident and facilitate access during the 4-week period. This was unreasonable given that it was aware she was without heating during this time.
  4. The landlord’s records show that following the appointment on 1 September 2023, it did not contact the resident to make an appointment until 14 September 2023. This was despite the resident contacting it in the interim to explain that she was not coping with the lack of heating, and that although she had an immersion heater, she did not use it. Following this call, the contractor next called the resident on 26 September 2023. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer her temporary heaters once the delay in arranging the boiler survey became known. While it has stated it offered heaters on 1 September 2023 and again on 15 September 2023, it should have continued to offer them after this time, up to the point the appointment for the boiler survey was made. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to assure itself of the resident’s safety and comfort in the property.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show that following the installation of the new boiler on 6 October 2023, the resident contacted it twice on the same day and again 8 days later with further concerns about the heating. The landlord attended within 24 hours on each occasion, in line with its policy timescales for emergency repairs, which was reasonable. It resolved the issues with the heating on each occasion, which were not due to any fault with the new boiler. On the first 2 occasions it found the resident had turned the room thermostat off, which caused there to be no heating. On the third occasion the contractor’s notes showed that the resident had shut down the boiler and no other faults were identified. Given the resident’s health conditions, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have given a detailed demonstration/explanation of how the boiler worked and how the resident could control the heating following the installation. This was a missed opportunity by it.
  6. Although the resident has described concerns about her heating, the landlord’s records show that apart from when it needed to replace the boiler, it attended in accordance with a priority 1 repair and resolved the matter. The replacement of the boiler took time, and eventually, due to the landlord being unable to re-route the pipework with the resident’s possessions in situ, it replaced the boiler with a similar system. It offered the resident temporary heaters in the interim, although it should have re-offered these once it was aware that there was going to be a delay in it carrying out the boiler survey. While the resident has said she was left without heating for over 7 weeks, the landlord’s records show the disruption to her heating was for a period of 5 weeks, partly caused by it not being able to replace the boiler with a newer and more economical system.
  7. Overall while the landlord acted appropriately in replacing the boiler with a like–for–like model when it became clear it could not re-route pipework in the property due to lack of access, there were delays in its undertaking the boiler survey. While the resident did have access to hot water in the interim, she stated she did not run the immersion heater due to the costs. She was left therefore without heating for over a month, during the autumn. Although the landlord offered her temporary electric heaters, in the circumstances it could have done more either to minimise the time she was left with no working boiler or to offer meaningful support during the interim period.

Asbestos

  1. Asbestos was used in many buildings until it was banned in 1999. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), asbestos is not dangerous for occupants if it is in good condition and not disturbed. In this case, asbestos may be left in place, monitored, and managed to ensure it is not disturbed.
    The HSE advises not to remove asbestos unnecessarily, as doing so could release asbestos fibres into the air, which would likely be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it. This is reiterated by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System’s (HHSRS) guidance for landlords and property related professionals, which states that asbestos that is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed can be managed and monitored in situ, with a record kept of the location of asbestos in the building.
  2. The presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), but if it is damaged or has deteriorated the landlord should carry out a repair and ensure there is no risk of asbestos fibres being released. The landlord also has an obligation under section 9A of the LTA to keep the property fit for human habitation in relation to hazards, including asbestos. Under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord owes a duty to occupiers to take such care as is reasonable to ensure that they are reasonably safe from personal injury due to any defects in the premises
  3. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord provided her instructions on how to remove Artex from her walls. She then discovered that this may have contained asbestos. The resident has not provided any documentary evidence or further detail as to how and when this information was provided to her by the landlord. She stated that her communication with the landlord was mostly by phone. The landlord’s notes and records do not contain any mention of the issue of asbestos or Artex having been discussed with the resident. While the landlord previously conducted an asbestos management survey of the property, this was done in 2016. The survey identified asbestos in all parts of the property which it could gain access to, except the hall and the bathroom. This was in keeping with the age of the property, as it was constructed in the 1960s.
  4. The survey identified that the areas containing asbestos remained undisturbed. The surveyor carrying out the survey concluded that no immediate action was needed in relation to these areas, apart from asbestos in the first-floor cupboard which needed removing. For all other areas containing asbestos, the risk identified by the landlord was very low.
  5. The landlord also completed a ‘frequently asked questions guide’ relating to asbestos issues, available on its website, in 2012. This document reiterated that if the asbestos remained unlikely to be disturbed and was undamaged, it should be left in place and not removed. There is no reference in the guide to say that it would be safe to remove any Artex.
  6. While this Service does not dispute that the presence of asbestos may have caused the resident a degree of distress, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord advised her to scrape the Artex off the walls. Its guidance to leave the material undisturbed or to paint over it was in line with industry guidance in relation to management of asbestos containing materials.

Summary

  1. In summary, the landlord dealt with the issues of the TV aerial and the Artex appropriately. However, its failings in not providing any update on the skylight between January and June 2023, and in not making an appointment for the boiler survey to address the lack of heating for 4 weeks, amount to service failure. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £100 is appropriate for these failings, which would have had an impact on the resident. The award is in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors to her possessions

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor damaged her personal possessions when it carried out work at the property. The damage was caused to her dishwasher, which no longer worked, and to an antique gramophone. The resident explained that the contractor used the dishwasher to prop open a door, and in doing so placed the dishwasher on top of an item. When the resident had asked it to remove the item underneath the dishwasher, the contractor reportedly dropped the dishwasher onto the floor causing a loud banging sound. She said the dishwasher had failed to work since that time. The resident did not confirm exactly when this incident occurred, or when the incident involving her gramophone took place.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that, in possible cases of compensation for damage to belongings, residents should make a claim to their own contents insurer in the first instance. It adds that, in the event cover is not provided by this means, claims for damage caused by the landlord or its operatives acting negligently will be forwarded to its insurance section for review.
  3. The landlord has stated that it contacted its insurer to see if a claim had ever been made by the resident. This was on the basis that the resident had mentioned the issues previously. Although the landlord could not be certain of when this was initially raised, it believed the events occurred 7 years ago. The insurance team responded to it to confirm the resident had contacted it in October 2018 about the issues. It advised that the resident had explained the issues had occurred when the kitchen was fitted in 2013, as well as at other times.  The insurer team explained that it would need the resident to complete a claim form for each incident, and it sent the forms to the resident. The landlord also made the resident aware of the 6-year limitation for damage claims. The evidence indicates that the resident did not return any completed forms to it. The landlord told this Service it had not received any further contact from the resident since the time.
  4. The landlord advised in its most recent stage 2 response of January 2024 that it would be happy to investigate the matter further if the resident could provide further details. This was an appropriate response from it. This is because it had not dismissed the resident’s claim. Based on the resident’s response, it would be able to pass the matter on to its insurer if the damage had allegedly been caused by either it or its contractor. The Ombudsman accepts that the damage to the resident’s personal possessions will have been upsetting for her. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the matter. This is because it acted in accordance with its policies and proposed reasonable further steps for investigation, which were not progressed through no fault of its own.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints procedure at the time of the resident’s complaints. This was in addition to its initial informal stage, where it allowed itself 3 working days to resolve a matter to the complainant’s satisfaction. If this was not possible, the matter would progress forward to a formal stage 1 complaint.
  2. At stage 1 the landlord would acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days, and would aim to send the response within 15 working days. Its policy said if it could not respond within this timescale, it would provide the resident with a timeframe within which it was able to respond and provide the reasons for its delay. The timeframes for stage 2 mirrored those for stage 1.
  3. This investigation has considered 2 complaints made by the resident. These were made on 7 June 2023 and 5 January 2024.
  4. In the case of the first complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued the stage 1 and stage 2 responses in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, the stage 2 response did not address the issue of the resident’s skylight. Instead, it centred only on the issue of the TV aerial. As the appointment for the skylight mentioned in the stage 1 response had yet to take place by the time of its stage 2 response, there is no evidence provided that the landlord resolved the matter for the resident through its complaints process.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in January 2024 in relation to the repairs to the skylight, her TV aerial, concerns about her heating, and several other repairs. The landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns, and it has provided this Service with a further stage 2 response dated 29 January 2024. While it explained it made the decision to review the resident’s complaint following contact from the Ombudsman, it did not issue her a stage 1 response on this occasion and instead escalated the complaint straight to stage 2. This denied the resident access to the landlord’s published 2-stage complaints process in respect of some of the issues. We consider this a service failure which would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience as well as confusion. The Ombudsman finds that an award of compensation of £100 is payable for the landlord’s failure. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s compensation policy for issues which have caused a low to medium level of impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors to her possessions.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within the next 6 weeks (allowing for the Christmas period), the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200. This is made up of the following:
      1. £100 for its failures in its handling of the repairs.
      2. £100 for its failures in its complaints handling.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the concerns raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in January 2024. It should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and any outstanding matters. It should consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when discussing the matter with her. It should deal with any repairs or issues raised in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with details its insurer and offer assistance in the completion of any claim form she may wish to submit.