Believe Housing Limited (202009933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009933

Believe Housing Limited

31 March 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property during the void period.
2. The landlord’s handling of issues at the property once the tenancy had commenced.
3. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding her energy supply.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent refund due to the condition of the property when she moved in.
5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent refund due to the condition of the property.

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

The resident has advised that she believes that the property was in an uninhabitable condition (disrepair), and that she should be reimbursed for the rent she had paid during this period. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to decide whether or not a property was in a state of disrepair as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. The resident could make a formal disrepair claim to the landlord if she wants to pursue this matter.
In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges. These issues are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from Shelter in relation to how to proceed with a case, if she wishes to do so. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore cannot comment on this matter further.

Background and Summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2020 following a viewing of the property and included a list of issues that needed to be addressed prior to accepting the tenancy for the property:
1. There was a damp patch on the floor in the living room caused by the roof around the chimney.
2. The ceiling in the bedroom was bowed and looked like it was about to collapse.
3. The trunking around the water pipes in the hall was not completed to an acceptable standard.
4. The rooms in the property needed to be stripped of wallpaper in order for her to redecorate.
5. The garden needed to be cleared, but she was aware that the landlord was in the process of arranging this.
The landlord responded on 7 September 2020 and advised that the damp patch in the living room would dry and that there was no apparent leak. It confirmed that the bedroom ceiling was safe and the crack in the ceiling was a decoration issue which would be the tenant’s responsibility to address. It agreed that the trunking was unacceptable, and this would be rectified. It explained that it did not strip the walls during the void period as decoration was the responsibility of the tenant. It confirmed that the garden work would be completed once the property had been accepted. It confirmed that if the resident accepted the property, it would write-off two-weeks’ worth of rent which the resident could use to decorate the property. The resident responded the same day and advised that she would accept the property under these conditions; she asked for the issues to be noted on the tenancy agreement.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed the date on which she could sign the tenancy agreement and pick up the keys. It confirmed that it was attending the property to complete the work to the trunking and hoped this would be completed the same day. It sent a further email the next day to advise that further work was needed, and the resident would not be able to move in that day.
On 10 September 2020 the landlord confirmed that the repair work to the trunking had been completed and the chimney had been inspected. It advised that the area was still damp, but this was superficial and would take time to dry out. It confirmed that it would write off three-weeks’ rent as the resident had not been able to collect the keys as expected.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2020 after she had moved into the property. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been waiting to view the property since February 2020 and had only been able to view the property on 4 September 2020. She advised that the trunking had not been fixed and she had been misled. She explained that the landlord’s contractors had turned off and locked the electricity and had not switched on the gas. She asked the landlord to complete the works needed in the garden as soon as possible because it was not in a good condition.
The landlord responded on 11 September 2020 and advised that the delay in making the property ready to let was due to Covid-19 and the landlord had apologised on each occasion when it had spoken to the resident. The landlord had been assured by an inspector that the trunking had been completed previously but advised that it would arrange for this work to be done as soon as possible. It advised that the gas in empty properties was always capped and it was the tenant’s responsibility to arrange a supplier and a “turn on and test” with the landlord. It confirmed that the electricity would have been disconnected due to rewiring work which was carried out before the resident moved in. It confirmed that, again, it would be the tenant’s responsibility to arrange, and this would have been explained to the resident over the phone. It confirmed it had written off three weeks’ rent so that the resident did not need to move into the property straight away.
On 15 September 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she wished to raise a formal complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 September 2020 and asked the resident to confirm what in particular she was dissatisfied with.
The landlord has confirmed that the works needed to the resident’s garden were completed on 22 September 2020.
The resident raised her complaint on 27 September 2020 and advised the following:
1. She explained that her property was in a bad condition and needed further work done before being let. She noted that the property had been empty for months and no repair work had been completed since the lockdown restrictions (imposed as a result of Covid-19) eased in June 2020. She advised that she felt under pressure to sign the tenancy agreement.
2. She advised that when she collected the keys to the property, she had no electricity or gas supply and had to resolve this herself which caused her stress and worry.
3. Following her initial viewing of the property, she had raised concerns about the damp on the floor and the chimney breast in the living room, as well as problems with the trunking in the hallway. She advised that she had been assured that the damp would dry, that the trunking was fixed as of 10 September 2020.
4. She expressed dissatisfaction that the trunking was not fixed when she signed the contract and the landlord had now booked this work for 30 September 2020, three weeks after she had been told this work was completed. She advised that the work to the garden had now been completed following her calls and emails.
5. She advised that the damp was still not dry and that there was a possible leak from the roof around the chimney. She explained that if she placed laminate floor and decorated the walls, the decoration would be damaged by the damp which would cost her a lot of money.
6. She explained that in order to redecorate she needed to strip the old wallpaper off the walls. She had begun to do this on the ground floor, although she noted that the plaster came off the walls leaving gaps. She advised that new radiators had been installed over the damaged wallpaper and it was impossible for her to work around these. She asked for the radiators to be removed and put back in place when she had finished decorating. She had booked for the walls to be replastered on 7 October 2020 but this was likely to take more than one day to complete.
7. She added that the toilet walls and floor were soaked with urine from a previous tenant and that a new toilet had been installed onto the compromised wall and floor. She advised that the smell was ‘horrendous” and that the ceiling plaster was falling away when she had removed the wallpaper, creating holes. She advised that she felt anxious that the ceiling would collapse.
8. She said that she and her daughter were living in poor conditions and that she had raised these issues but had been ignored. She advised that the current property was not worth the rent she paid, and she believed she should not pay the rent whilst these issues remained. She advised that the issues were affecting her mental health and she had not been able to sleep after part of the ceiling in the bathroom had fallen on her.
9. She advised that she did not want to discuss the matter any further with one member of staff and asked that another staff member took over. She asked the landlord to attend the property to carry out an inspection and requested details of its compensation policy.
The landlord has confirmed that the trunking work was completed on 30 September 2020.
The landlord visited the resident at the property on 5 October 2020. Its records show there were now large sections of plaster missing in the hallway and living room which had fallen off during the wallpaper removal. The landlord also confirmed that this issue would not have been identified during the void inspection this only became apparent when the wallpaper had been removed by the resident. The landlord agreed to replaster the downstairs and patch the walls upstairs where needed. The landlord identified a damp patch on the living room wall and advised it would arrange for an inspection to decide whether the chimney needed to be repaired or removed. It confirmed that the crack in the bedroom ceiling could be covered when decorating.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 October 2020 following the visit and advised that she did not feel she should pay rent as she could not decorate until the issues were resolved and the property was in a liveable condition. The landlord responded the following day and advised that withholding rent would affect the resident’s tenancy. It confirmed that it had agreed to resolve the issues and would therefore not offer a reduction in rent for the property. It noted that the property needed replastering following the removal of the wallpaper, but this had not prevented the resident from living at the property. It advised that all decoration work would be the responsibility of the tenant and it had acted fairly by offering to plaster the affected areas in the property.
The landlord sent a further email on 6 October 2020 and advised that it would be sending a conclusion letter to the complaint she had raised. It confirmed that this did not mean that it was the end of the complaint and it would monitor the repairs progress moving forward. It advised that it could not provide timescales for the repairs due to Covid-19, but assured the resident that the work would be completed. The resident responded on 6 October 2020 and asked the landlord not to close her complaint until all works had been completed. She maintained her position that the property was unrentable and in poor condition.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it did not keep complaints open until repairs had been completed. It explained that it had looked at the issues and agreed the works to be completed, meaning the investigation had been completed at stage one. It confirmed that it would send the resident its stage one response that day and asked the resident to provide the reasons she wished to escalate her complaint. It advised that the property was in a lettable standard, some issues had been identified when she had removed the wallpaper, and it had agreed to put this right. The resident responded the same day and said that she did not feel the issue had been completed. She advised that until the repairs had been completed the complaint could not be closed.
The landlord sent a further email on 7 October 2020 and attached its stage one complaint response and lettable standards policy for the resident’s reference. The landlord’s stage one complaint response explained the following:
1. It reiterated its position concerning the electrical and gas supply and the resident’s responsibilities to arrange these services to be connected.
2. The resident had advised that following the removal of the wallpaper in the toilet, the smell had gone and that no further works were raised in relation to this. The landlord advised that no bowing of the ceiling had been identified and that there had been a small crack in the plaster that would be covered when decorating.
3. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as she had been provided with the correct information regarding the gas and electricity supply to the property. The landlord had also waived three weeks’ rent at the property, to allow the resident more time and financial assistance with the decoration of the property.
4. In relation to the repairs at the address, the landlord had been told by its contractor that the trunking had been completed before allocating the property. When it became apparent that this was not the case, it had raised for these works to take place and were completed shortly after the resident had moved in. The resident had been advised when she accepted the property that the garden was still to be completed but had already been raised to be completed as soon as possible. It apologised for the slight delay in the completion of these works.
5. The landlord noted that the issue with the plaster on the walls had only been identified once the resident had removed the old wallpaper to redecorate. It explained that it did not usually remove wallpaper from properties at the void stage and that this issue would not have been identified at the time as the wallpaper was intact.
6. It advised that applicants were able to view a property and decide whether the property is suitable for their needs; at the viewing stage, they could raise any issues they feel are relevant. If there were any repairs that needed to be done, these would be raised; however, the property was allocated as seen and all decoration would be the responsibility of the tenant after accepting the property.
7. The landlord confirmed that it would continue to monitor the repairs needed at the resident’s property and if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, she could escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2020 and asked for her complaint to be escalated for the following reasons:
1. She advised that she had never experienced a business who would close a complaint before the issues were resolved and without her consent.
2. She advised that the property was not in a lettable condition when she moved in and that she had no access to gas or electricity. She added that since it was the landlord who capped these facilities, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to ensure these could be utilised by a tenant.
3. She did not feel that three weeks’ rent was a sufficient amount considering the unsuitable conditions she was living in. She felt that she should not be paying rent until the issues were resolved and she was able to redecorate. She was dissatisfied that her appointment to complete the plastering on 7 October 2020 had been cancelled at the last minute.
4. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the trunking and advised that this had been covered on 30 September 2020 but not repaired. She advised that she did not have the date on which these issues would be completed, and that the landlord was forcing her to live in a building site. She also expressed dissatisfaction that she had not been provided with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2020 and acknowledged her stage two complaint. It advised that the resident would receive a formal response within ten working days and that if there were any likely delays she would be informed.
The landlord confirmed that the plastering work needed was completed by 21 October 2020; this included the hallway, living room, and upstairs walls.
On 21 October 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response and explained the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken with the resident on 12 October 2020 and she had advised that the only outstanding issue was the plastering at the property. The plastering work was carried out to the hallway and living room in full and further patch work took place upstairs. The landlord confirmed that this work took place between 14 and 16 October 2020.
2. The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 October 2020 and the resident had confirmed that she was happy and satisfied with the work that had been carried out. The landlord noted that the resident was in agreement that her complaint had been resolved.
3. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It had not identified any service failure in relation to the plastering work, although it sympathised with the resident and said that ideally the work should have been completed when the property was void. In this instance, the works were only identifiable when the resident began to decorate her property.
A visit took place at the property on 2 November 2020 where the landlord inspected the damp issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2020 and advised that she had only received its stage two complaint response on 3 November 2020 after she had called to request this. She remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not addressed her concerns related to damp in the property, which she said she had raised on several occasions. She said that she did not have a date for when the damp issues were going to be resolved. She advised that any decoration work she undertook would be compromised by the damp and that her property was currently a ‘building site’ which was not acceptable.
The landlord responded to the resident and advised that her stage two complaint had been completed. When it had contacted the resident the only issue she identified was the plastering works; these were then completed to the resident’s satisfaction. Following completion of the plastering works, the resident had then raised her concerns about potential dampness in her living room and front porch. It had visited the resident on 2 November 2020 and identified that tanking work was required to the chimney breast and that some work was required to the cavity in the porch. It explained that it had a backlog of work due to the impact of Covid-19 and that it would be looking to bring the dates for this work forward where possible.
The landlord confirmed that the works to address any damp in the resident’s property was completed on 9 November 2020.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers the outstanding repair issues at the property to have affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her testimony; however, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the repair works to the property during the void period.

When a property is void, a landlord is obligated to ensure that when a tenancy commences the property is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards. During the void period, prospective tenants have the opportunity to inspect the property, to see if the property is suitable for their needs. The prospective tenant could refuse the property as not being suitable for their needs at this point.
If a prospective tenant raised issues relating to the condition of the property, any necessary repairs and alterations should generally be made before the tenant moves in. However, the landlord’s Lettable Standard document states that some works may be carried out after the resident moves in; but if this is the case, they would be made fully aware what is outstanding and when it would be rectified.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction regarding the condition of the property when let. It is noted that the resident raised concerns in relation to certain aspects of the condition on 4 September 2020 when she viewed the property.
The works needed to the garden were identified by the landlord during the void inspection on 24 August 2020. The landlord has confirmed that it had completed this work on 22 September 2020. It was reasonable that the landlord would wait to complete works to clear the garden until the tenancy was confirmed as it may otherwise have needed to complete this work multiple times until the property was let. The resident was made aware of the pending work required which is in line with the landlord’s lettable standard and this was completed within eight working days of the resident moving into the property which was reasonable.
The resident also raised concerns about the damp patch on the living room floor within the void period. The landlord took steps to address this issue before the tenancy was accepted. It checked the chimney for leaks and found no underlying issues and advised that the damp patch would dry. Whilst further issues became apparent once the resident moved in, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns and relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors who found that there were no issues with the chimney or damp patch. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its contractors, and it was therefore reasonable that no further work was carried out at this stage as it believed the damp patch would dry. It was appropriate to carry out further investigations at a later stage when the resident reported that the damp patch had not dried. However, this could not be anticipated initially, following the void inspection.
When the resident advised that the damp patch had not dried, the landlord visited the property within a few days and arranged for an inspection to see whether the chimney would need removing. On 2 November 2020 it established that tanking was required in two areas of the property and this work was completed on 9 November 2020.
The landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp at the property during the void period and after she moved in.When it became apparent that the damp was not drying satisfactorily, the landlord took steps to investigate this matter. The underlying issue was then resolved on 9 November 2020; this length of time was reasonable because the landlord needed to organise a pre-inspection to identify the issue prior to its resolution and was within the 40-working-day planned works timescales.
The resident also raised concerns about the trunking prior to accepting the tenancy. On 10 September 2020, the landlord confirmed that the work to the trunking had been completed, although this was not the case. Unlike issues with damp, which may not become apparent straight away due to the need for monitoring over a period of time, it would be clear to see whether the trunking had been completed or not. Whilst the landlord completed the necessary works on 30 September 2020, within 14 working days of the resident moving in, the failure to address this issue earlier is likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience as she was led to believe that this work had been completed. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property once the tenancy had commenced.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be obliged to keep in repair the structure of the resident’s property, including the plasterwork and internal walls. The resident would be responsible for any internal painting and decoration, including maintaining the garden. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms that it has three categories for repairs: emergency repairs, which should be made safe within 24 hours; appointable repairs, which should be carried out at the next available appointment and within 20 working days; and planned repairs which may require further time to complete, which should be carried out within 40 working days. It states that repairs such as major plastering works would be considered planned repairs.
The resident began to remove the old wallpaper from the walls of the property in order to redecorate when she moved in. This led to sections of plaster falling off the walls, leaving large gaps. This issue was identified on 17 September 2020 and the landlord has confirmed that the plastering work was completed on 21 October 2020, which was within 24 working days and therefore in line with its planned repair timescales. This issue only became apparent once the resident had moved into the property; the landlord has confirmed that it would not usually remove the wallpaper during the voids process as the decoration of the property was the resident’s responsibility. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had not been aware of the issue until the resident reported the problem.
It is clear that this matter has caused the resident some distress; however, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repair works at the property when the tenancy commenced. The landlord has acted within its policy timescales in handling the repairs at the resident’s property. The landlord had advised that it did not necessarily know when it would be able to complete works at the resident’s property due to the backlog of repair works because of Covid-19, which is reasonable as it would need to prioritise emergency repairs during this period. It would have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with an expected timescale for these works, but the resident was not significantly disadvantaged as the landlord had satisfactorily investigated and repaired these issues within its published timescales.

The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the gas and electricity supply.

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the gas and electricity supply at the property were not turned on when she moved in. The landlord has advised that it would have made the resident aware of her responsibility to arrange a supplier during phone conversations prior to the tenancy. Although there is no documentary evidence of this due to the landlord not providing any telephone notes in regard to this matter, the resident clearly expected her gas and electricity to be functional and advised this matter had caused her anxiety.
The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the resident’s gas and electricity had been shut off during the void period. It has also explained that it would be the resident’s responsibility to arrange a supplier and organise a “turn on and test” with the landlord. Overall, it is reasonable that the gas and electricity would be turned off at the property during a vacant period, although there has been some miscommunication in relation to who was responsible for turning these on and there is no confirmation that the resident had been made aware of her responsibilities regarding this matter. The landlord has suggested that she would have been made aware of this during a telephone conversation prior to moving into the property. However, the landlord has not provided any record of its discussion concerning the gas and electricity supply and therefore the Ombudsman cannot confirm whether this was discussed.
In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of the distress which this lack of information may have been caused her. It is also recommended that the landlord considers providing information regarding the gas and electricity supply in writing to all tenants prior to their tenancy, to prevent any uncertainty and inconvenience when moving into a new property. It is also recommended that the landlord ensures that it keeps clear records of any telephone conversations and can provide these to this Service when required.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it has a two-stage process for handling complaints. At stage one the landlord should provide a formal response within ten working days. If there is likely to be an extension the landlord would give another date within a further ten days where it would aim to provide a response. The complaint can be considered at stage two where a customer remains dissatisfied. The landlord should provide a formal response within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The resident raised her initial complaint with the landlord on 27 September 2020. The landlord investigated the issues and provided its stage one complaint response on 7 October 2020. This was within seven working days and in line with its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 8 October 2020. She expressed concern that the landlord had ‘closed’ her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that stage one of the resident’s complaint had been ‘closed’. Usually once an investigation has taken place and a response has been issued, a complaint would be ‘closed’ at stage one. This does not mean that the landlord would not continue to work to resolve the outstanding issues or that the resident could not escalate her concerns to the next stage. The resident was informed that the landlord continued to work to resolve the repair issues and that she could escalate her complaint if needed, which was appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 21 October 2020, which was within nine working days of the complaint being raised. It is noted that the resident has advised that she did not receive this response until 3 November 2020. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord had sent this response to the resident at an earlier date but, nevertheless, the resident received this response within 18 working days of escalating her complaint; this is in line with the landlord’s 20-working-day timescale for providing a stage two response. The resident was therefore not significantly disadvantaged by this delay.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the issues regarding damp at her property were not addressed in the landlord’s stage two response. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation for this, although it would have been helpful for each aspect of the complaint to be detailed in any complaint response. The resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as she remained in communication with the landlord regarding the damp and this was handled within a reasonable timescale. However, it is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training to ensure that each complaint aspect is addressed at all stages to prevent any uncertainty for its residents.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property during the void period.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs at the property once the tenancy had commenced.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication with the resident regarding her energy supply.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord advised the resident that the work needed to the trunking at the property had been completed before she had moved in, but this was not the case. This led to a delay in completing the work needed and is likely to have inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord handled the repair issues at the property once the tenancy commenced within its published timescales. It would have been helpful for the landlord to provide estimated timescales to the resident during this period; however, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged as the repairs were completed within a reasonable period after she moved in.
The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of her responsibilities in relation to the gas and electricity supply at the property when she moved in. It is clear that this information was not communicated effectively to the resident which she states had caused her anxiety. The landlord should offer appropriate compensation in view of this.
The landlord has responded to each stage of the resident’s complaint within its published timescales. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that her complaint was ‘closed’ at stage one and that she could escalate her complaint to stage two if she remained dissatisfied. This did not mean that the landlord was no longer considering her repair issues but that its investigation at stage one was complete, and a plan was in place to resolve the outs

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150, comprised of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the trunking work at the property.
  2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused because of its communication with the resident in relation to her energy supply.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training to ensure that each complaint aspect is addressed at all stages to prevent any uncertainty for its residents.
It is recommended that the landlord considers providing information regarding the gas and electricity supply in writing to all tenants prior to their tenancy to prevent any uncertainty and inconvenience when moving into a new property.
It is also recommended that the landlord ensures that it keeps clear records of any telephone conversations with residents and can provide these to this Service when required.