Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000555)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000555

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 2023

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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof and bathroom.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 13 February 2012. The property is a one bedroom flat on the top floor.
The resident suffers from mental health, mobility issues and has a lung condition. She is currently undergoing cancer treatment.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident must:
1. Report promptly any disrepair for which the landlord is responsible
2. Allow access to the landlord and its contractors to inspect the condition of the property and carry out any required repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend to emergencies within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s definition of ASB includes conduct that has caused harassment, alarm or distress. It also includes conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any other person. Its policy states that the following will not be investigated as ASB:
1. Disputes over boundary and parking issues
2. Actions which amount to people being unpleasant (e.g. staring at or ignoring people)
3. Reports due to different lifestyles or everyday living situations which are not intended to cause nuisance or annoyance.
The policy states that it recognises that “low level” reports of ASB can still have an impact if there are repeated incidents. If behaviour is found to be persistent and deliberate, then consideration will be given to the risk and impact before deciding whether it can be investigated under the policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will not investigate a case where it has evidence that the complaint is unreasonable or vexatious. In such circumstances, the complainant will be informed that it will not be taking further action in relation to that specific complaint and why.
On 23 December 2019 the resident instructed a disrepair claim to the landlord for an ongoing leak in the bedroom that caused damage to the ceiling and damp as a result. The landlord agreed a part 36 settlement and on 16 April 2021 the resident signed a disrepair completion certificate to confirm that she was satisfied with the works that were completed to her property.
On 1 June 2020, the resident reported an incident of ASB to her landlord. She advised that:
1. Her neighbours were getting together and at the same time, her doorbell kept ringing “for hours at a time”. She thought her neighbours had stuck the button down with something
2. She had a camera at the front of her property and witnessed her neighbour doing a dance in front of it, and felt this was harassment
3. Her neighbours had accessed her wireless music device and had played loud music in her flat. They had also put a concrete block through her car window in the past. Both incidents had been reported to the police.
4. She had not logged dates and times of the incidents, but had been liaising with the local police community support officer (PCSO).
In response to this report, the landlord’s records noted:
1. The resident had made numerous unsubstantiated reports about several of her neighbours for many years
2. Wardens attended to look at the resident’s doorbell and saw that it was faulty. Nothing suggested it had been tampered with
3. Her neighbour caught dancing on camera was not deemed to be harassment
4. The resident was able to encrypt her wireless music device to ensure no unauthorised connections. The concrete block incident was historic, and investigations by the landlord and the police had concluded some time ago
5. The case did not meet the threshold for ASB. It had tried to contact the resident by phone to discuss its findings but was not successful. A case closure letter was sent to advise her of this.
On 22 March 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she wanted a new walk-in shower wet room. The landlord’s records note that it attended on 4 June 2021 to inspect the property but was unable to gain access. A card was left to inform the resident it had been to visit.
On 23 June 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that her neighbour was in the communal garden and had called her “all sorts of names”. She witnessed her neighbour talking to an operative, asking him if he had been up to her flat and they were laughing.
On 5 July 2021 the landlord visited the resident’s property to inspect the bathroom. The operative noted that when he arrived on site, the resident was just leaving and would not let him in. When he advised he needed to inspect the condition of the bathroom, the resident said she only wanted a wet room and became abusive, so he had to leave.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord was able to gain access to the property to inspect the bathroom. Follow up works were raised to remove and replace loose tiles. It also noted that further works were needed to:
1. Install a new disabled grab bar and cistern
2. Install a new hose and tap head or shower mixer tap
3. Make good the holes in the bathroom walls and replace the bath panel.
The landlord wrote to the resident after it had a conversation with her neighbour about the 23 June incident on 24 August 2021. It said that her neighbour had denied the allegations made. She said a conversation had taken place with an operative, but the resident was not discussed. The landlord explained her allegations did not meet the threshold for an ASB investigation and so the case was closed.
On 3 September 2021 the resident made a complaint to her landlord and said that:
1. There was ASB from her neighbour which had not been resolved. This included the neighbour causing damage to her car
2. Repairs to a leak in her bedroom were outstanding
3. She wanted additional sockets fitting in her property
4. As a resolution, she wanted all repairs completed and her neighbour to be moved.
On 7 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she wanted to convey a “very important message”. She said that she wanted it noted that she went to court about her neighbour, some years in the past. The judge told her neighbour she had “got through by the skin of her teeth and dared her” to cause ASB again. Her neighbour had ignored this advice and continued to gossip about her.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It advised that:
1. With regards to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB:
  1. It had spoken to its tenancy specialist team who had confirmed that there was no open ASB case due to insufficient evidence. All ASB incidents she had reported had been dealt with in accordance with its ASB policy
  2. It would not consider rehousing either party based on the ASB reported to date
2. With regards to the resident’s reports of a lack of action taken about repairs:
  1. It had confirmed with its contractors that a leak was reported in the bathroom in June 2021 and the repairs were raised on 20 July 2021. The contractor tried to make contact to book the repairs in, but was unsuccessful. Owing to an administration error there was then a slight delay in rearranging them
  2. An appointment had been booked for 22 September 2021 and it was confident that the repairs would rectify the leak in her bedroom at the same time
  3. No request for a repair had been raised for additional sockets to be installed. The resident was encouraged to report new repairs via the landlord’s contact centre
3. In recognition of the issues involved in her complaint it would offer her £150 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. Repair over service level agreement £50
  2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses £50
  3. Goodwill payment due to inconvenience caused £50.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord’s contractors attended the property to repair the bathroom. The landlord’s records note that the resident was unhappy that its contractors attended without boot coverings. She provided them with these, but as they started to replace the tiles in the bathroom, she told them to leave because she felt they were applying too much pressure to the wall.
On 7 October 2021 the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord. She said that:
1. Around 6pm she was on her way out to her car when two of her neighbours pulled up to their property. They had an “aggressive stance” and the matter was reported to the police
2. Some workmen had taken down some metal trellis between the balconies of her neighbours property. When she started to reinstate the trellis, she heard her neighbour’s toddler using an expletive
3. The landlord had a responsibility to stop this behaviour and move her neighbour.
Records show that in response to this report, the landlord:
1. Asked the resident to elaborate on her allegations, but noted that she did not respond
2. Sent the resident an action plan, advising her to keep an incident diary
3. Spoke to the neighbour. In doing so, counter allegations about the resident’s own behaviour were made
4. Reviewed video footage the neighbour had provided. This showed both parties arguing but no offensive language was heard
5. Spoke to an operative who witnessed the incident. The operative heard raised voices but could not hear exactly what was being said
6. Spoke to the resident’s support worker and raised concerns about the reports the resident was making
7. Updated both parties that based on its investigations, it would not be taking the matter any further and encouraged the resident to simply “ignore” her neighbour. It advised she could report further concerns, but it would not be investigating minor neighbour disputes in the future.
Around 12 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said:
1. Bathroom repairs scheduled for the 22 September 2021 did not go ahead
2. She saw that her neighbour had received a new kitchen, but she had been left with a bathroom in a poor state
3. The leak in her bedroom was ongoing. There had been a “downpour” into her room on 12 October 2021, soaking her mattress. The leak was due to roof works that had been ongoing for ten years
4. Her ASB concerns were unresolved despite many reports made to multiple agencies
5. The landlord gave a tenancy to a neighbour who has had many claims of ASB against them, and this was irresponsible. As a resolve, she wanted:
  1. Her bathroom to be repaired
  2. The ASB of her neighbour to be acknowledged and addressed
  3. The leak in the bedroom to be resolved
  4. A review and increase of the compensation it had offered her.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord attended the property with its contractors and a supervisor to complete works to the bathroom. Its notes recorded that the resident refused access because she did not want any repairs, she wanted a new walk-in shower installed.
On 21 October 2021 the resident said that her bedroom ceiling was still an issue and she was woken up with wet bedding again. Her email was forwarded to the repairs team on 26 October 2021.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her concerns about works being done to the communal balconies. It explained that the works were to clear the balconies for better flow of rain water. It said that water leaks to her bedroom would be addressed at the same time as the communal roof repairs which were about to start imminently.
On 22 November 2021 an appointment was arranged for the landlord to inspect the property. The resident cancelled the appointment as she was feeling unwell. The landlord tried to reschedule the appointment, but the resident said she wanted to discuss it the following week.
Between 1 to 3 December 2021 the resident interacted with the landlord on social media. She said that she was frustrated with the complaint response she had received, and the landlord’s communication was appalling. She said the landlord had caused her dislike of her neighbour.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with a final response to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging her escalation to stage two due to an administration error. It advised that:
1. It was sorry that she remained dissatisfied following its stage one response. It acknowledged that the resident was requesting her bathroom repairs and bedroom leak to be resolved, the ASB with her neighbour addressed and a review of the compensation it had offered
2. With regards to the ASB handling it advised that:
  1. It was satisfied with the response it had already provided her at stage one. Whilst the resident had reported ASB to various agencies, it had not provided the landlord with specific details of incidents such as the time and date. It was therefore unable to investigate her allegations further
  2. There was insufficient evidence to support that her neighbour was responsible for any damage to her car, and therefore it would not be pursuing the matter further
  3. The issues she was reporting was as a result of “lifestyle differences”, and there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations the resident had made against her neighbour. It would not discuss further any details of the type of tenancy her neighbour had been granted
  4. If the resident continued to experience ASB she should report it to the landlord. If anything happened which was of a criminal nature, then she would also need to report it to the police. It provided her details of how the landlord manages ASB via a link to its relevant webpage.
3. With regards to roof works:
  1. In the stage one response, it had incorrectly advised her that the repair to the bathroom would fix the leak in the bedroom. It apologised for this, and acknowledged there were two separate repair issues
  2. It had noted that her concerns with regards to the roof were investigated as part of a legal disrepair claim. It advised that as part of the claim, patch works were completed to the roof. However due to its overall condition, a referral to the planned investment team was made for the roof to be renewed and added to its 2021/2022 programme of works
  3. The landlord had experienced difficulty in erecting scaffolding, due to objections the resident and leaseholders had made. This caused a delay, however the works had since begun and this included the section of roof that covered her property
  4. The roof works were expected to be completed at the end of January 2022, subject to weather conditions and covid restrictions. Once they were complete, then it could arrange to make good repairs that were needed to the inside of her property
  5. Prior to the resident’s complaint, it was unaware that the roof was still affecting her bedroom. It had made several attempts to attend her property but had been faced with difficulties gaining access to inspect it
4. With regards to the bathroom works:
  1. Its contractor had attended to each of the repairs the resident had reported about loose wall tiles. It had already recognised there was a delay in its stage one response in attending between July and September 2021, and had compensated for this
  2. It had noted that on 22 September 2021, the resident had asked its operative to leave because he was only booked to replace the tiles, and not make good the wall. Although it was unable to complete the works, other repairs had been highlighted and a meeting was arranged with a surveyor for 20 October 2021
  3. During this visit, the resident refused access and requested a new walk in shower to be installed instead of the proposed repair works
  4. It had noted that the resident had said a neighbouring property had been provided with a new kitchen, when her bathroom needed updating. It could not comment on works being done to neighbouring properties, and her bathroom had not been identified for renewal
  5. It was important that the resident allowed access to contractors to complete the outstanding repairs. An appointment would be arranged with a surveyor present to address any concerns she had with the current condition of the bathroom
5. On conclusion, it felt that appropriate redress had been offered to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. However in recognition of the delay she had experienced in the landlord writing to her at stage two, it would offer her a further £50 in compensation. If she remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.
On 20 December 2021 the resident reported that two of her neighbours were harassing her. She did not provide any specific details of incidents, but advised that she was not going outside because of her disability. The landlord responded the same day and advised the resident to report hate crime to the police, and provide it with a reference number for her ASB case to be progressed further.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord made a further attempt to schedule an appointment to complete the repairs that were outstanding to her bathroom. The resident advised the landlord that she was still unwell and “not ready” to book the appointment in. She was advised that the repair works would be closed on the system and she should call the contact centre when she feels better to reschedule.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to close her ASB case. It advised it had not had any further information from her with regards to her reporting a hate crime to the police and therefore there were no grounds for further investigation.
Further attempts were made by the landlord to attend to the residents bathroom on 15 February, 2 March and 15 May 2022.
On 11 August 2022 the landlord discussed the resident’s reports of ASB with the local authority. The local authority confirmed that the resident did not meet the threshold for an investigation under the community trigger.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that:
1. There had been a recent parking dispute with a different neighbour across the road but she could not recall the dates this had occurred. She believes that she had reported the matter to her landlord, but was unsure
2. There had been another incident where a bird had made mess on her car, and whilst she was clearing it up, she could hear another neighbour laughing
3. She believes her landlord has encouraged her neighbours to gossip about her, and feels as though they are laughing at her. This is her main concern
4. The roof repairs had been completed
5. Problems with her bathroom remain and it is in a poor condition. She advised a surveyor had not visited the property and the landlord was refusing to make reasonable adjustments to her bathroom. She wanted a wet room which would assist her with her disability
6. As a resolution, she wanted a brand new wet room or to be considered for a move. She also wanted the landlord to compensate her for her decline in health which she attributes to dust from workmen and paint fumes.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that:
1. Repairs to the roof were completed in January 2022
2. It has tried to schedule further appointments with the resident to assess the condition of the bathroom. In recent correspondence, the resident informed it that she was going into hospital on 3 July 2023 and would schedule an appointment on her return to the property
3. An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment was completed in 2021. On 8 June 2023 the team confirmed that there were no outstanding aids and adaptations required to the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited by the availability of evidence. The resident has said she raised ASB concerns since the day she moved into the property. Given the time that has passed, we cannot fairly expect the landlord to provide records from this period. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from 2020 onwards.
It is acknowledged that the situation has been upsetting to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to a breach of tenancy agreement, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
The resident has made a number of reports about several of her neighbours to the landlord over the years. The frequency and nature of what the resident has complained about has varied, but in recent communication with the Ombudsman, she has said her main concern is that her neighbours have parked inconsiderably and have been “gossiping” about her.
The landlord’s ASB policy is quite clear on what it cannot reasonably investigate as ASB. This includes parking disputes and behaviour from neighbours which could be interpreted as “unpleasant”, such as staring or ignoring. It would be reasonable for the landlord to assume that “gossiping” would also be deemed as unpleasant behaviour and therefore would not meet the threshold for an investigation under its ASB policy.
No evidence was seen that supported the resident’s allegations that her neighbours were behaving in a deliberate way so as to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not investigate the resident’s reports noted from June 2020 to December 2021 under its ASB policy. That said, it still tried various reasonable interventions to try to placate the resident and help the situation. This included investigating allegations that her buzzer had been tampered with and speaking to operatives who may have witnessed any altercations.
The landlord has also spoken to neighbours about what had been reported, which was a reasonable response. No evidence was seen that the resident had requested anonymity in her reports to the landlord, nonetheless it would have been difficult for the landlord to balance anonymity against the resident’s wishes for actions to be taken against her neighbour. In the absence of independent witnesses, it was reasonable that the landlord approached her neighbours on each occasion to ask for their version of events.
The allegations were denied, and with no independent witness it is reasonable that the landlord has taken no further action against the resident’s neighbours. No evidence was seen which demonstrated that the landlord had in any way encouraged the neighbours to gossip about her. On the contrary, its response has been empathetic and it has given advice to both parties to simply “ignore each other”.
The landlord’s ASB policy refers to mediation as a tool to resolve “low level” neighbour disputes at an early stage. The landlord advised that mediation was offered to the resident and refused. Evidence seen shows that it has considered the most recent complaints from the resident and has felt that mediation is not appropriate given the nature of history of complaints against several different neighbours. In recent correspondence seen from around 23 April 2023, the resident has complained about approximately five different neighbours. It is accepted that mediation may not be appropriate in every case, however the landlord should consider offering it again should circumstances change.
On 20 December 2021 the resident reported that she felt unable to leave her home due to the harassment and being disabled. The landlord responded the same day in accordance with its ASB policy, and advised that she should report the issue as a hate crime to the police. This was a reasonable response, however no evidence was seen that the resident did this and without further support from the police, the landlord has been limited in its ability to take further action.
On each occasion that the landlord has closed a report of ASB on its system, it has written to the resident to explain why it has taken that action. It consulted with partner agencies and its approach was reasonable in managing the resident’s expectations of what actions it could take, based on the evidence she had provided. It was appropriate that the landlord left its offer to investigate further reports of ASB with evidence in the future open, should the situation change or escalate in the future.
Overall, evidence was seen that the landlord has encouraged the resident to report dates, times and details of specific incidents that had taken place alongside relevant police reference numbers as appropriate. From evidence seen, the resident has not done this. Without specific detail and evidence to support her allegations, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident’s reports did not meet the threshold for investigation in accordance with its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof and bathroom.

The resident has reported that she feels that she has experienced a decline in health due to dust from workmen and inhalation of paint fumes. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish a causal link between health and the landlord’s actions. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Therefore the issue of the impact on the resident’s lung condition is outside the scope of this investigation.
It is not disputed that the resident was successful in a legal disrepair claim against her landlord for repairs required to the roof, and she signed a disclaimer on 16 April 2021 to confirm that she was satisfied with the repairs that had been undertaken as part of that claim. The Ombudsman is unable to consider events leading up to 16 April 2021 as they were subject to legal proceedings, however, consideration has been given to the resident’s complaint that roof repairs were ongoing past this date.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for notifying the landlord that repairs are required within a reasonable time frame. Evidence from repair records demonstrate that the landlord was unaware that issues with the roof leaking into her bedroom had continued after she had signed the disrepair disclaimer. It was not until her email of 3 September 2021, five months later, that the landlord became aware that there were ongoing issues.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak in her property through its stage one complaint response. This was inappropriate, and it incorrectly advised her that the leak would be fixed at the same time as the works to her bathroom. The two repair issues were entirely separate, as it later identified in its final stage two complaint response.
When the resident reported that she had issues with the condition of her bathroom on 4 March 2021, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It made several attempts to attend to the property within an appropriate timeframe, but was hindered where the resident did not allow access. It was not until 19 July 2021 that the landlord was able to inspect the resident’s bathroom and raise a number of follow up repairs.
A further delay occurred booking in the remedial works, owing to the resident declining an appointment and a subsequent administration error. The landlord acknowledged and appropriately compensated the resident £150 for this within its stage one response, which at the time was fair and sufficient to put matters right for the resident.
However the failure to acknowledge the repairs as two separate issues, and the delay in arranging an inspection of the leak was unreasonable. After the stage two response, she reported that when it rained on the 12 and 21 October 2021, her roof leaked to the extent that she woke up to a wet mattress on two occasions. For a leak to have entered the property to the extent her mattress got wet is of significant concern and would have met the threshold for an emergency repair with a 24 hour response time, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
However despite advising it had difficulty gaining access to the property, its records did not demonstrate that it had attended to inspect the leak in the bedroom until 22 November 2021. This delay was significantly outside of the timescale that could be expected for an emergency repair. The issues with the roof were not concluded until January 2022 causing the resident further inconvenience and distress over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord’s stage two response was comprehensive, and recognised that there had been a failure to identify the two repairs as separate issues. However it failed to recognise that there had been failures in communicating with the resident about the roofing works. It failed to appropriately compensate her for the additional time, inconvenience and distress she experienced for issues relating to the roof, after she had brought the disrepair claim.
It is recognised that the landlord has experienced considerable difficulties in accessing the property to carry out remedial works to the bathroom. The resident has an obligation to allow the landlord access to complete the works it had identified as being required to her bathroom. She has not done this, and has been clear that she does not want the landlord to repair the bathroom but fully replace it with a new wet room. This request was responded to within the landlord’s stage two complaint response, where it explained that her bathroom had not been identified for a renewal but was willing to send a surveyor to further assess its condition whilst the landlord carries out the outstanding repairs.
To date, the resident has not allowed the landlord access for this visit. By doing so, the resident has hindered the landlord’s ability to fully assess the current condition of the bathroom. The landlord can consider facilitating a fresh visit with an occupational therapist (OT) to understand if the resident has additional needs. A recommendation has been made in relation to this. If the landlord is aware that remedial works need to take place, but the resident continues not to allow access to the property, then it can consider an application to court for an injunction.
Overall, there was a failure by the landlord in recognising that there were two separate repairs at an earlier stage. The resident experienced distress where she reported two significant leaks in her bedroom in October 2021, and the communication around what was being done with the roof repairs was not explained until the stage two response. The landlord’s compensation did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for this error. An order of further compensation has been made in relation to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof and bathroom.

Reasons

The nature of what the resident reported did not meet the threshold for an investigation under the landlord’s ASB policy. She did not provide it with specific details of incidents, including dates and times that she alleged that ASB had occurred, which hindered the landlord’s investigations and ability to take further action. Nonetheless, the landlord still tried various interventions to support the resident. These included talking to potential witnesses, contacting the resident’s support worker and providing reasonable advice.
It is accepted that the landlord has experienced difficulties in gaining access to the property to carry out remedial works to the bathroom, and these remain outstanding as a result. However, it failed to recognise at an earlier stage that two separate repairs were required to the property and in doing so the resident experienced inconvenience and distress relating to the roof repair over a prolonged period of time. Its stage two response acknowledged this oversight but did not go far enough to put matters right.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the failures highlighted in this report in relation to repairs required to the roof.
Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and distress she experienced in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the roof. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider facilitating a new visit with the OT to establish if the resident has additional needs in relation to her bathroom.
The landlord should discuss with the resident her move options, if she still wishes to pursue this.