Brighton and Hove City Council (202302918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302918

Brighton and Hove City Council

12 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the consultation process for the roof repair work.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property. The lease started in July 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a 2-story block. The landlord confirmed it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 3 July 2020 prior to purchasing the lease, the resident told the landlord her property survey identified a number of urgent repair works. This included the replacement of the roof. The landlord said external works (unspecified) were due to start soon but it would request the roofing surveyor looked and programmed something in if necessary. The landlord raised a job in August 2020 following a report from the resident that the roof was not watertight, tiles were missing and the roof lining was inadequate. The landlord completed a repair in September 2020 to clear the gutter. A further repair took place in October 2020 to realign the loft insulation. On 14 July 2021 the landlord told the resident the property was included in a programme for roof replacement in the year 2022 to 2023.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection following a report of damp on external walls and problems with loft insulation. The landlord identified the roof sarking had perished in most areas and needed replacement. On 23 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident a Section 20 Notice of intention to carry out roofing works. It said the roof was in a poor condition and near the end of its serviceable lifespan.
On 24 November 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident said the following:
1. The delay to the roof repairs resulted in moisture marks on an internal wall.
2. She provided the landlord with a Homebuyers Report before she purchased the property. This showed roof repairs were urgent.
3. The scaffolding was erected on 26 September 2022 but work had not started yet.
4. While the scaffolding was in place the resident was only able to open her windows by 3-5cm and this was a health and safety and fire risk.
5. Building supplies were in her front garden for 4 weeks and were damaged.
6. The landlord told her on 3 July 2020, she would have the opportunity to submit quotations for the work.
7. The landlord visited the property in August 2020 to add further insulation to the loft. The operative attending did not have any additional materials and must have moved around what was already there.
8. The landlord visited the property in August 2022 and completed a moisture test. This was in the summer and did not reflect the true moisture readings.
9. The landlord ignored the resident’s concerns about internal damage.
10. The costs proposed for the roofing works were 3 times the quote the resident obtained in 2020.
11. The landlord was unjustified in charging an administration fee.
On 30 November 2022, the contractor confirmed the roofing work would commence on 5 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 December 2022. It said the following:
1. 2 surveyors visited the resident to assess the damp/water marks to the internal walls. The resident was advised this was not the result of water penetration through the roof but condensation within the property.
2. Before commencing works, it had a legal obligation to enter into a formal consultation with all residents. As part of that process it had a statutory requirement to carefully consider the issues raised and respond accordingly. The legal timeframe for response was 30 days. It also allowed an additional 3-4 weeks to respond to any observations that arrived after this.
3. It was sorry for the delay to starting the works. This was to ensure it was being as fair and reasonable as possible to any resident who presented an observation at the end of the consultation period or just after.
4. Before starting works, it carefully considered any health and safety or fire safety implications. This was done in conjunction with local fire and rescue services.
5. The windows were not designed to be used as a means of escape in the event of a fire. The escape route was via the front door.
6. The resident could contact the local fire and rescue service if she remained concerned about fire safety for a home safety check.
7. Due to limited space around the site, it was necessary to use the front garden to store materials, with the permission of the resident.
8. None of the materials stored were perishable or subject to deterioration by weathering. The materials were not damaged in any way.
9. The costs for the work were determined to be reasonable by its quantity surveyor.
10. Under the terms of the lease, it was entitled to charge up to 15% as an administration charge. It had applied an 11% charge which reflected the costs in managing the works.
11. The works would not be billed until September 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2022. The resident said the water marks were not condensation but penetrating damp through the defective roof. The resident raised further concerns to the landlord on 26 March 2023. This was about poor communication during the job completion, increased energy costs, poor insulation, leaks and water damage in December 2022, insufficient insurance, untidy work, the impact to the appearance and value of the property, approved contractors, and a request for an itemised invoice. She also requested collectively on behalf of 3 other residents a reduction in the service charge costs for the roof repair works.
The Landlord provided its final response on 16 May 2023. It said the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. There were areas of the resident’s complaint it could not consider under its complaints policy. This was because there was an alternative right to appeal these via its leaseholder dispute procedure. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could pursue the matter with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The main outcome the resident was seeking was a reduction in the costs of the work and compensation relating to the work. This could be considered through this procedure. The resident would have to wait until she received the invoice for the works in September 2023 to pursue this.
3. Before issuing a certificate of expenditure the landlord must ensure all services to the properties were billable under the terms of the lease and costs are reasonably incurred.
4. It was often not possible for it to receive final accounts for the works until sometime after they were completed.
5. These factors meant it was not possible to have the costs verified and finalised before being billed in September in the certificate of expenditure.
6. It had asked a surveyor to attend the resident’s property to view her concerns about damage to the inside of her property and consider if there was any work that should now be carried out.
7. It would likely only carry out work that was necessary to the block, not the resident’s property, as per the terms of the lease.
8. In 2020, the landlord tendered for a contractor to carry out planned maintenance. That tender was then put to a leasehold consultation. After consideration, the council entered a long-term agreement with its contractor. That long term agreement had already been subject to consultation.
9. Leaseholders were consulted about the content of the works, but the costs and choice of contractor had already been subject to the consultation that led to the long-term agreement.
10. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint escalation. An error had taken place and the landlord lost touch with the complaint. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said the landlord had not taken accountability for the delays, it had not addressed all the points of her complaint, her complaints had not been investigated, she was not able to supply quotes for the work during the consultation process, and the landlord had not provided an invoice for the costs of the work. The resident further raised a leaseholder dispute with the landlord in September 2023. The resident escalated this on 5 December 2023. This was about the costs of the roof repair work applied to the resident’s service charge.

Assessment and finding

Scope of investigation.

Part of the resident’s complaint is about the increase in the service charge due to the cost of the roof repair work. This Service cannot make a binding decision on complaints about the level of or increase to service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Under Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek legal advice in relation to how to proceed with these issues.
The resident stated in her complaint that she had raised issues with the roof in 2020. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from March 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident raised a leaseholder dispute with the landlord in September 2023 about the cost of the roof works and subsequent service charge. The resident also raised further reports of leaks and water marks in her property in November 2023. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority under the Scheme, and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in November 2022 up until the landlord’s final response on 16 May 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.

The lease agreement says the landlord agrees with the resident to maintain and keep in good and substantial repair the structure and exterior of the property. The resident agrees with the landlord to pay the service charge. The lease states the total expenditure means all expenditure which the landlord had incurred in any accounting period in regard to carrying out its obligations and powers and any other costs and expenses reasonably and properly incurred in connection with the building. This includes the cost of the landlord complying with any requirement regarding the property and building, and carrying out any alterations, additions, or improvements permitted under the lease.
The landlord’s leaseholders handbook says the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure, exterior and shared parts of the block of flats. This includes the roof. The resident’s repair responsibilities mainly concern the inside of the property and includes plaster or other surface material on internal walls and ceilings. The handbook says complex repairs will take longer than 20 days to complete.
The handbook says the service charge is the resident’s share of the landlord’s costs in running the building. It says it is a leaseholders responsibility to pay the service charge and this includes contributions towards the cost of any major works carried out at the building. A leaseholder will be sent a certificate of expenditure in September showing the actual costs of services provided to their block in the previous financial year. The certificate of expenditure will show the costs of any major works or improvements carried out to the block which a resident will have to pay, as well as the service charge. Major repairs or improvements includes roof repairs or replacement.
In relation to compensation payments, the landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure says where it is obvious that a resident has suffered some loss due to a fault by the landlord, consideration should be given to offering a payment to the resident.
It was evident the start date for the roof replacement was later than originally planned. In a letter to the resident on 28 April 2022, the landlord said the works were planned to be carried out in June to September 2022. It said this may change slightly. The roof works were started on 5 December 2022 and signed off as completed by the landlord on 16 January 2023.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
While the landlord did set the resident’s expectations around possible changes to the start date in its correspondence, the resident did not receive consistent updates on the start date for the work. On 17 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident the works were due to start from August 2022 and it would notify her of any changes to this. It was not clear if the resident was informed of the delay following this. On 21 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor stated it would start to erect scaffolding to the exterior of the property on 26 September 2022. The contractor wrote to the resident on 23 November 2022 to apologise for the delay and again on 30 November 2022 to confirm the roof works would start on 5 December 2022.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the delay to the work starting was due to the consultation process. It said it allowed a further 3-4 weeks from the end of the 30-day legal timeframe to respond to observations that arrived later than the official cut off point. This demonstrated a fair approach by the landlord to adequately consider all observations received. However, the landlord should have provided an update to the resident about this delay. This would have set the resident’s expectations around when the work would start. As a result, the resident experienced the distress and inconvenience of not knowing when the work was starting.
While the additional 3–4-week period for the consultation process explains part of the delay, the reason for the delay to the work following the scaffolding being erected in September 2022 was not clear. It was noted the landlord’s contractor did keep the resident updated on this delay in November 2022. The delay to commencing the works once the scaffolding was in place resulted in the resident enduring the inconvenience of the scaffolding for an additional 10 weeks while waiting for the work to start.
The resident raised concerns that she was not able to open her windows more than 5cm while the scaffolding was in place. She said this was a health and safety and fire risk. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed the windows within the property were not designed to be used as a means of escape. It confirmed its process prior to starting building works was to carefully consider any health and safety or fire safety implications in conjunction with advice from the local fire and rescue services. The landlord provided a clear explanation here to the resident’s concerns. It also signposted the resident to the local fire and rescue service if she remained concerned about fire safety. This was an appropriate action to take.
The resident raised concerns about the condition of the roof prior to purchasing the lease in July 2020. The landlord’s records showed it raised the planned roof replacement to take place for the year 2022 to 2023 on 11 January 2022. The frequently asked questions sheet on the proposed works, sent to residents by the landlord, prior to the works starting, stated surveys completed in 2018 to 2019 identified the roof was requiring renewal and if left would eventually start to leak in bad weather.
The landlord’s repair policy does not specify a timeframe for the completion of planned works. However, given the extent of the work required to the roof, which required a replacement, it was reasonable for the landlord to add this repair work to its planned works schedule. This Service appreciates the timeframe for the roof replacement works was frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord’s repair records demonstrated it attended to reported repairs, and inspections to the roof in the meantime, prior to starting the full roof replacement.
The resident said damage was caused to her property due to water penetrating the brick work and exposing moisture marks on the internal walls. The landlord’s repair records showed it visited the resident’s property on 23 March 2022 following a report of damp. The resident stated in her complaint a further visit took place in August 2022. This Service did not receive the records of the visit to the property in August 2022. It was also not clear if the report from the visit in March 2023 was shared with the resident. This Service recommends that such reports are shared with residents, as to provide transparency and reassurance.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its surveyors visited the property to assess the damp and water marks to the internal walls. The landlord advised the marks were condensation within the property and not a result of water penetration to the walls. In its final response, the landlord stated it would arrange for a surveyor to attend to view her concerns. It said it would likely carry out only work that was necessary to the block and not the resident’s home. This advice was in line with the terms of the lease agreement. The offer of a further visit from a surveyor was appropriate for the landlord to investigate any further damage.
This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for damage to the resident’s property because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. The resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of her property. However, given that the resident repeatedly informed the landlord she felt a delay to the repair of the roof had caused internal damage to her property, and had reported damp previously in August 2020 and March 2022, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not refer this to its insurer, or provide the resident with details of how to make a claim.
The resident told the landlord that building supplies were damaged after it left them in her front garden for 4 weeks. The landlord confirmed the materials stored were not perishable and had not been damaged. The landlord demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns into consideration and provided her with a reasonable explanation. There was also no evidence provided to this Service of a response by the resident that contradicted the landlord’s position here.
The resident said she requested an itemised invoice from the landlord for the roof works in January 2023. The resident said she had the right to request and review the invoice prior to the billing in September 2023. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it was not possible to have the costs verified and finalised before they were billed in September in the certificate of expenditure. The landlord explained this was due to the process it undertook to complete the certificate of expenditure and the time to receive the final accounts for the work. The landlord’s actions here were in line with its leaseholders handbook which says major works are included in the certificate of expenditure for the year in which they are completed and are sent out at the end of September each year. Furthermore, the landlord complied with its obligations as part of the Section 20 notice in providing the resident with an estimated breakdown of the costs.
In summary, the roof repairs took longer to commence than initially stated by the landlord. It is noted the landlord’s contractor did provide the resident with updates in November 2023 of the delay to the start of the works. However, it was not clear if the resident received an update on the change in the start date prior to this. Once the works commenced, this was completed within the estimated timeframe provided to the resident. However, it was noted the resident endured the inconvenience of the scaffolding in place for longer than expected.
The landlord demonstrated it investigated the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her property, and relied on the inspections of its surveyors to determine the marks to the walls were not caused by the leak from the roof. However, the resident expressed her concern on several occasions that she felt damage was caused to her property as a result of the time taken for the planned roof repair work to take place. The landlord failed to refer the resident to its insurer. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with this Services’ remedies guidance for where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings to address the detriment to a resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the consultation process for the roof repair work.

The landlord’s leaseholders handbook says the landlord must consult with a resident before it begins any major repairs, maintenance, or improvements for which a resident has to pay a share and will cost a resident more than £250. For consultation on works under long term agreements with a contractor a resident will be sent a notice of intention. This will describe the works, set down the reasons why the works are needed, and estimate the total cost. It will allow 30 days for written comments and will reply to anyone who writes in.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 April 2022 to confirm it had appointed its contractor for the roof replacement. The landlord sent the resident a Section 20 notice for the roof repair work on 23 May 2022. This provided the resident with the details of the work to be completed, an estimated cost of the works, and provided the resident with 30 days to make written observations. This was in line with its legal obligations.
The landlord responded to the resident’s observations on 17 June 2023. It provided reasons for the proposed costs to the work. The landlord demonstrated it considered and answered the questions raised by the resident. This Service was unable to point to any failures in respect of this approach, which complied with the landlord’s legal obligations and included due regard to procedural fairness.
The resident raised concerns that she was not consulted about the costs of the work and not able to submit her own quotations. On 3 July 2020, prior to completing the purchase of the lease, the landlord told the resident that it would consult leaseholders for the roof replacement works, and with some consultations the resident would have the opportunity to submit quotations for it to consider. The landlord here did not confirm the consultation for roof works to the resident’s property would include the opportunity for her to submit quotations for consideration. While this Service acknowledges it was frustrating for the resident not to be able to submit quotations, the landlord had stated that this was the process for some consultations only.
The Section 20 notice sent to the resident on 23 May 2022, stated the works were being completed under an existing long-term agreement with its contractor. It said leaseholders were fully consulted before the agreement was let in compliance with Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. It said competitive tendering was not required as the contractor was already in place. Leaseholders were not invited to nominate a contractor. In this notice the landlord complied with its legal obligations and the procedure for consultation on works under long term agreements set out in its leaseholders handbook.
The landlord explained in its final response that it had entered into a long-term agreement with a contractor. It said the cost and choice of contractor had already been subject to the consultation that led to the long-term agreement. The landlord’s explanation here was clear and consistent with the Section 20 notice. It explained the reasons the resident was not consulted on the choice of contractor. This was an appropriate approach by the landlord.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it provided an explanation to the resident’s concerns about its consultation process for the works. Its explanation was consistent with the information in the Section 20 notice provided to the resident in May 2022. The landlord complied with its legal obligations and provided the resident with the required information on the consultation process. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the consultation process for the roof repair work.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy on its website says it has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of being acknowledged. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At both stages, if it is not possible to reply within the timescales, the landlord will contact the resident and provide an explanation containing a clear timeframe for when a reply will be received.
The policy says if the landlord considers that it cannot accept a complaint, it will provide a full explanation, setting out why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. Complaints where an alternative right of appeal exists are excluded from being dealt with by the landlord’s corporate complaints procedure. Where a decision has been made not to deal with a complaint through the complaints procedure the resident should be advised of any alternative options that might be available to them.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The Code says where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation where the stage one response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
There was evidence of the resident first raising a complaint about the roof works to the landlord on 16 June 2022. The resident followed this up on 1 July 2022 and asked the landlord to recognise her email as a complaint. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 1 July 2022 showed it arranged to speak with the resident in person on 5 July 2022. It was not clear why the landlord did not formally respond to the resident. As such, the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to raise her concerns again in November 2022, both herself and through an enquiry from her local councillor. This resulted in a protracted complaints process and delayed the resident’s access to this service.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2022, in an email to the landlord. The landlord provided its final response on 16 May 2023. This was a timeframe of 105 working days. The delay here was excessive and further delayed the resident access to this service. This was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
It was noted the landlord provided the resident with updates on the delay to its stage 2 response on 25 April 2023 and again on 10 May 2023. However, it was evident the resident had to follow up with the landlord prior to this for it to acknowledge her complaint escalation.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation until 6 April 2023. It said it received this on 27 March 2023. The landlord told the resident on 27 March 2023 it had no record of receiving a stage 2 escalation. This was despite it acknowledging receipt of the resident’s escalation email on 16 January 2023. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to follow up with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its final response. It said this was due to an error in which it missed part of the resident’s complaint escalation. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delay. It also demonstrated it investigated what went wrong and identified the error it made. However, the £50 of compensation offered did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. This did not fully account for the time and trouble taken by the resident to continue to follow up on her complaint for a period of 5 months.
When chasing the landlord for a response to her complaint escalation, the resident raised a number of new complaints in an email on 26 March 2023. This was about poor communication during the works, increased energy costs, poor insulation, leaks and water damage during December 2022, concerns about insufficient insurance, untidy work, the impact to the appearance and value of the property, approved contractors, a request for an itemised invoice, and requested collectively on behalf of 3 other residents a reduction in the service charge costs for the roof works.
In its final response, the landlord said the resident’s concerns about the cost of the works and the impact on her property could not be considered under its corporate complaints policy because “an alternative right of appeal existed via the leasehold disputes procedure. It advised the resident this process could consider the outcome she was seeking of a reduction in the costs of the work and compensation relating to the work. The landlord’s actions to refer the resident to an alternative right of appeal was in line with its corporate complaints policy.
While this was the correct process for the resident to raise her further concerns, the landlord did not clearly confirm to the resident the exact parts of her complaint it was not considering at stage 2. As a result, the resident was left feeling a number of points were unaddressed. It was not clear which parts could be considered under the leasehold dispute, or if a new complaint needed to be opened for the additional points raised.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling took too long and was not clear enough to define the parts of the resident’s complaint it could not consider under its corporate complaints policy. The landlord failed to open a formal complaint in June 2022. The resident also had to continue to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord to receive her final response over a period of over 5 months.
The landlord acknowledged it made an error and lost touch with the stage 2 complaint, demonstrating it investigated its failure. However, the £50 of compensation offered did not go far enough to reflect its full failures here. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £150 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. This compensation figure includes the £50 previously offered during the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the consultation process for the roof repair work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation. This amount includes the £50 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £150 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.
2. £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

It is recommended the landlord reviews its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents on the progress of planned works, including changes to proposed start dates.