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

Take part in the consultation

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202402062)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402062

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
    2. Report of repairs to the kitchen cupboards and garden gate.
    3. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in December 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. At the time of the complaint the resident was pregnant and had a young child.
  2. On 26 February 2024, the resident reported a water leak coming from the bathroom into the kitchen. She also noted that there was black mould on the ceiling in the bedrooms and kitchen.
  3. The landlord carried out 2 inspections on 8 and 15 March 2024 which noted:
    1. There were no leaks found in the loft area.
    2. There was mould on the ceilings due to lack of ventilation.
    3. The windows needed new vents as the current ones were old and did not work.
    4. There was a leak emanating from under the bath which was affecting the kitchen ceiling. The case note said that this was resolved during the inspection.
    5. Follow-on works were required to check the guttering and roof due to the location of the mould.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 April 2024, expressing frustration regarding the delays in completing the repairs and the quality of the work carried out by the landlord’s contractors. She said that there was a leak in the bathroom, which was affecting the kitchen ceiling and had caused it to collapse. Additionally, she said there was black mould and dampness throughout the property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 May 2024, apologising for any inconvenience caused to the resident. It said it was committed to investigating the issues further and had scheduled inspections for the treatment of the mould as well as repairs to the leak and ventilation of the windows. It also offered the resident a total of £515 compensation. The same month, the landlord carried out works which included renewing the shower mixer tap and pipework to the bath, applying stain blocker to the kitchen ceiling, and a mould wash treatment.
  6. The resident continue to raise concerns about delays in carrying out the works, stating that the works were inadequate and only partially completed. On 28 May 2024, she requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2, citing repeated delays, unresolved repair issues and poor quality repairs. She went on to say that despite multiple inspections, including a survey conducted on 10 April 2024 during which the surveyor noted the windows needed replacing, the repairs had not been fully addressed.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024, acknowledging the resident’s concerns. It stated that an inspection on 20 May 2024 found that the windows did not need replacing, although the loft insulation needed renewing and was attended to on 27 June 2024. It went on to say that replastering work had taken place in the kitchen and a 3-stage treatment to the ceiling and wall in both bedrooms had been carried out. It offered the resident an additional £400 compensation.
  8. In October 2024, the resident reported that the bath was leaking again. Additionally, a survey of the property was carried out which identified issues related to damp and mould. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 November 2024 explaining it had reviewed the complaint and found that the stage 2 response did not sufficiently consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It awarded an additional £50 compensation and committed to providing a detailed report of the issues and carry out the repairs.
  9. During our recent contact with the resident, she told us that there was mould on the windowsills in multiple rooms and some windowpanes were misted between the glass. She said that the bath overflow was still leaking into the kitchen and wanted the outstanding repairs completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to concerns about the impact her living conditions may have had on her health and that of her family. We acknowledge these concerns. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused or worsened a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. The repair log shows that the resident reported issues with a leaking bath in September 2022 which was attended to by the landlord. This information is useful to provide contextual background to the complaint. In line with this Scheme, this assessment will focus on the more recent issues surrounding the resident’s reports of disrepair from February 2024 and the events leading up to her formal complaint.

Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident. The landlord will carry out all other repairs within 28 calendar days. Its policy goes on to say, as far as is practicable, responsive repairs are limited to minor building repairs, with an aim to keep properties in a safe state, fit for habitation, and with all components safe and serviceable for day-to-day use by residents.
  2. The landlord provided us with a copy of its damp and mould self-assessment and its leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy. The policy says that the landlord will:
    1. Identify and remedy any leaks or other issues likely to cause condensation, damp, and mould when a property becomes void.
    2. Offer initial advice when a resident reports unresolved issues with leaks, damp, mould or condensation, followed by a property inspection to identify the cause of the issue(s). It may carry out further investigations to diagnose the problem if the issue is not straightforward or may be due to a combination of factors. It will carry out any repairs identified within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    3. Carry out a comprehensive risk assessment where severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances.
    4. Keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and the timetabling of works, where these are required.
  3. On 26 February 2024, the evidence shows that the resident reported damp and mould on the bedroom ceilings and a water leak from the bathroom into the kitchen ceiling, which she said was “always damp”. An inspection was carried out on 8 March 2024 which noted there was black mould on the ceilings in the bedrooms and bathroom due to “lack of ventilation”. The inspection notes confirmed there was no leak in the loft area, but a leak was found under the bath and attended to the same day. Additionally, it was noted that the windows needed new vents as the existing ones were not working properly. The landlord responded to the report within 11 calendar days, which was in line with its repair policy. Since there was no indication that the leak was an emergency repair, it was addressed within its repair policy timescale of 28 calendar days and was therefore appropriate.
  4. A further inspection was carried out on 15 March 2024, during which follow-on works were advised. The repair log indicated that a works order was raised for roofers to assess the guttering given the location of the mould. Additionally, an appointment was scheduled to clean the mould affected areas following the inspection. This approach was appropriate, as the underlying cause needed to be established before any treatment work was undertaken.
  5. The works were originally scheduled for 18 April 2024 but were cancelled due to staff sickness. The landlord informed the resident of the cancellation on 15 April 2024 and rescheduled it for 30 April 2024. Though unfortunate, this was reasonable, as staff sickness was outside of the landlord’s control, and it provided the resident with prior notice of the cancellation.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 April 2024. She said that she had been patient by waiting for the repairs to be completed but noted that contractors had failed to attend on 2 occasions. She also said that the leak from the bathroom had caused the ceiling to collapse twice previously, and described the plastering repair as “horrendous”. Additionally, she explained that the bath had continued to leak, causing black mould and brown staining on the kitchen ceiling and raising health concerns for her child. She went on to explain that the damp and mould in the bedrooms had caused the curtain rod to detach from the wall. She also raised concerns about mould around the windows and bathroom taps.
  7. The repair log shows that an inspection of the windows was carried out on 15 April 2024, with the case notes confirming that the window frames would not be changed but the landlord would replace any blown glass. The inspection was carried out promptly by the landlord which was appropriate.
  8. On 19 April 2024, the case notes show that the roof and gutters were inspected. However, a subsequent entry for 23 April 2024 indicated that the resident reported that no one attended that day, as no access was requested for the rear of the property. The case notes go on to say that the inspection was intended for both the front and rear of the property, suggesting that only the front was inspected. The repair log in this instance lacked detailed information about the inspection’s findings, only stating the job as “complete” on 19 April 2024. Accurate and complete records enable the landlord to monitor outstanding repairs and to provide accurate information to its residents. This would indicate a recording keeping failure.
  9. Internal correspondence of 10 May 2024 shows that the landlord contacted the resident in order to close the case. However, the landlord acknowledged that this was not possible as the resident reported the leak continued and was dripping through the kitchen ceiling. The repair log shows this was categorised as an emergency repair and attended to the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy, given the severity of the leak and the resident’s vulnerability.
  10. On 15 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the outstanding repairs. It advised her that the mould in the bedrooms was scheduled to be treated on 4 June 2024, and the windows were due to be inspected on 20 May 2024. Internal case notes for the same day demonstrate a lack of sufficient record keeping. The internal notes said that there was “minimal notes on the job” regarding the replastering works needed after the leak into the kitchen. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide it to us when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations.
  11. On 20 May 2024, a further inspection of the windows was carried out. The case notes mentioned that the resident requested new windows rather than just replacing the glass. The same day, the resident contacted the landlord expressing her concern that this was the second inspection that had taken place in relation to the windows, the first having taken place on 10 April 2024. She explained that the previous inspection recommended replacing the windows to improve airflow and alleviate the damp and mould. Additionally, she understood more loft insulation was required. The landlord liaised internally in relation to the windows, with the case notes of 24 May 2024 saying that it did not appear that a surveyor had attended in the past to inspect the windows and the inspection was carried out by the damp and mould team. The notes further explained that “operatives” had attended in May 2024 and taken photos of the windows, determining that the windows did not need replacing.
  12. The landlord’s response in relation to the windows was not appropriate. This was because despite the resident raising multiple concerns about the windows, including associated reports about damp and mould and air flow issues, the landlord relied on an assessment by its damp and mould team rather than a qualified window surveyor. Since the resident expressed ongoing concerns and there was a history of issues, the landlord should have instructed a qualified surveyor to carry out a thorough inspection of the windows. This would have ensured a comprehensive assessment, especially given the resident’s repeated reports and the potential impact on her health and well-being. Conducting a proper survey could have better addressed her concerns and determined whether replacement was indeed necessary. Doing this in the first instance may also have avoided the inconvenience of repeat appointments.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 May 2024. It outlined a timeline of events and the action it had taken. It acknowledged that:
    1. It had not been proactive in providing the resident with updates.
    2. It had failed to fully address the damp and mould issues within 28 calendar days as per its policy.
    3. There had been a “missed appointment”.
  14. The landlord’s response went on to apologise for the delay in addressing the damp and mould and the outstanding repairs, and offered the resident a total of £515 compensation. This was broken down into £15 for a missed appointment, £300 for the delayed damp and mould work, and £200 for delays in carrying out the repairs (such as repairs to the mixer tap, refitting the curtain rod, and stain blocking the affected areas from the leak). The landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It also took steps to put things right by offering her compensation, which was appropriate.
  15. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2024. She said that the repair work was not done properly, and she believed there was a leak in the loft as she could hear water dripping whenever it rained. She also said that the emergency repair to the bath did not fully address the issues as there was still a hole in the ceiling from the water penetration. She provided the landlord with photos of the windows, which she said demonstrated they needed replacing. The landlord’s repair policy in relation to emergency repairs says it will carry out a temporary repair and make the area safe. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the emergency repair did not fully address the issue at that time.
  16. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 5 June 2024. On the same day, the resident advised the landlord that following the damp and mould treatment work carried out the previous day, the window vents had not been cleaned as outlined in the stage 1 response. She expressed frustration, noting that this meant another appointment would need to be scheduled to clean the vents, resulting in additional waiting time for her. It was unfair to the resident that the landlord did not complete the work it committed to. The landlord was responsible for oversight of its contractors and should have ensured they were fully aware of the required tasks. By not doing so, it caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, necessitating an additional visit and delaying a resolution to the issue.
  17. On 17 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to provide additional information in relation to her complaint. She explained that “the roof” had leaked overnight, resulting in a puddle that caused her to slip. She said that she was “angry” that the situation had become a hazard and felt that her “voice was not being heard”. The case notes indicate that a supervisor visited the resident on 25 June 2024. While this was a positive step by the landlord in escalating matters, it was not appropriate that it took 6 working days to arrange. The resident’s report should have been categorised as an emergency, especially as the landlord was aware that the resident was pregnant and a young child was living at the property.
  18. The inspection notes said that there was no evidence of a leak at the time of the visit and agreed that the bath waste pipe should be replaced. This indicates that the leak originated from the bathroom and not the roof as reported by the resident. The supervisor also agreed to replace the double glazed unit in the front bedroom and 2 opening windows in the back bedroom. This was a reasonable response by the landlord, as the inspection clarified the source of the leak, and the agreed repairs showed a commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns.
  19. In July 2024, the resident liaised with the landlord about the ongoing repairs. She explained that the plastering works carried out on 1 July 2024 were not completed as the landlord did not allocate enough time for the appointment and the operative was unable to finish the tasks. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 July 2024, chasing the outstanding repairs. She said that although the overflow on the bath had been replaced, the waste pipe underneath the bath had not been replaced as promised. Additionally, the windows scheduled for replacement had still not been addressed. She expressed that these issues had been ongoing since February 2024, causing her stress during her pregnancy. This indicates a lack of proper planning by the landlord and consideration for the resident’s needs.
  20. On 29 July 2024, the resident reported that the bath was still leaking. The repair log shows that this was responded to the same day, with the waste pipe and waste trap being replaced. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attend the same day, this issue could have been avoided if the waste trap had been replaced on 22 July 2024, as identified as necessary on 25 June 2024 – over a month earlier. This delay caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  21. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. It said that it had addressed the issues raised by the resident and provided dates and work order references. However, it acknowledged that the compensation it offered the resident at stage 1 was incorrect based on the circumstances. The response also highlighted additional delays in resolving the repairs, which it said were not carried out in accordance with the initial work instructions. As a resolution the landlord offered the resident and additional £400 compensation. The revised offer showed flexibility and a positive effort by the landlord to resolve the situation, which is beneficial for maintaining a good tenant and landlord relationship.
  22. On 10 October 2024, the resident reported a further leak from the bath. The associated job was evidenced as complete on 16 October 2024, which was within the landlord’s repair policy timescale. It is acknowledged that resolving issues like leaks can sometimes require multiple attempts, as identifying the exact cause can be challenging initially, and different repairs may be necessary before the problem is fully resolved. However, over a span of 8 months, the resident reported the bath had leaked a total of 4 times. We consider it unreasonable that the landlord was unable to address the matter more promptly, as the delay caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  23. The evidence shows that a survey was carried out on 24 October 2024, which appears to have been prompted by 2 reports of damp and mould within a 12-month period. Arranging the survey was consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, the resident had been reporting issues with damp and mould constantly from February to July 2024, and so these concerns should have been considered much earlier on. While mould washes were carried out, the underlying cause should have been addressed much sooner.
  24. The survey also highlighted the absence of mechanical ventilation in the bathroom, which is concerning given the inspection on 8 March 2024 identified the damp and mould as being caused by “lack of ventilation”. Additionally, an inspection conducted by the damp and mould team did not recognise the lack of mechanical ventilation as a contributing factor. Consequently, over a period of 7 months, the landlord failed to take straightforward and reasonable measures to address the damp and mould issues in the bathroom, such as installing an extractor fan.
  25. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a comprehensive risk assessment in accordance with its damp and mould policy, particularly involving “severe or reoccurring” damp and mould issues. This was not appropriate and represented a missed opportunity to support the resident, especially given her family circumstances.
  26. The resident has advised us that the leak in the bathroom persists and the quality of workmanship regarding the plastering work was poor. It is noted that the landlord’s repair policy says that any redecoration work following a repair is the responsibility of the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord should have conducted a thorough inspection to ensure that the repairs were completed to a reasonable standard and that the underlying cause of the leak was fully addressed. There was no evidence to suggest that a final inspection was carried out of the works, which is considered good practice for landlords where repeated issues have been reported. This would have enabled the landlord to verify that its repair obligations had been met and repaired areas were of a suitable standard for redecoration.
  27. Additionally, the landlord had a responsibility to confirm that all the work was carried out to a satisfactory level, promptly rectifying any poor workmanship and ensuring that the work was effectively resolved to prevent further damage or inconvenience to the resident. Failing to do so demonstrated a lack of proper oversight and consideration to the resident’s health and safety concerns, which the landlord should have prioritised considering her vulnerabilities.
  28. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 November 2024 after it said it had reviewed the complaint and awarded an additional £50 for its failure to consider her vulnerabilities. While this was a positive step by the landlord, it took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service.
  29. Overall, the record keeping in this case has not been comprehensive, and at times unclear, making it difficult to determine when the landlord carried out specific repairs and what those repairs entailed. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the resident repeatedly reported ongoing issues related to leaks and damp or mould problems throughout the property. While it appears that the landlord responded within its policy and emergency timescales, the resident continues to report that these issues remain unresolved. The landlord had acknowledged the delays in resolving the matter and had offered reasonable compensation to the resident during the time period of February to August 2024. However, despite an agreement to replace the damaged windows, recent evidence provided by the resident indicates that some windows still require replacement over a year later. Although it is not for this Service to decide on whether the windows need replacing, the landlord’s actions have failed to fully resolve the resident’s concerns.
  30. Therefore we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs. We have awarded an additional £600 compensation. This is because the resident continued to experience distress and inconvenience between August 2024 and September 2025, and in is line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has been found. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says compensation will be awarded where repairs have gone over target time.

Report of repairs to the kitchen cupboards and garden gate

  1. On 26 February 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that the kitchen cupboard doors had fallen off. She also reported that the garden gate would not open or close and needed replacing.
  2. The repair log shows that the landlord attended on 25 March 2024 with no access recorded. It attended again the following day and noted that a new gate was required and 6 unit doors in the kitchen needed replacing. The landlord attended within 28 calendar days, which was appropriate and aligned with its repair policy timescale.
  3. The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 10 April 2024 expressed dissatisfaction that the kitchen cupboard doors would not be replaced in the exact same colour, as the landlord said these were no longer available. While this was not ideal, the repair policy says that responsive repairs will be carried out to ensure all components are safe and serviceable. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the doors with alternatives that allowed the kitchen to remain functional, even if they did not fully match the existing ones.
  4. The repair log shows that the landlord attended on 26 April 2024 in relation to replacing the gate, with it being recorded as a no access visit. This was 32 calendar days from its initial visit and 4 days outside of its policy timescale. Although technically outside its policy timescale, this was not unreasonable given the landlord had made previous attempts to access the property.
  5. The repair log shows that the works were completed on 7 May 2024. This was 43 calendar days outside of its policy timescale. Some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and offered the resident £200 compensation. It was unclear how this amount was divided between each repair or whether it included delays related to the window repairs as mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, we consider the overall amount to be proportionate to put things right. Therefore we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of these repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that responses to stage 1 complaints will be provided within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 responses provided within 20 working days from acknowledgement. At each stage it says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 10 days if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to residents.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident requested to raise a formal complaint on 10 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 18 April 2024, in accordance with its complaints policy. On 24 April 2024, it contacted the resident to advise that it would not be able to meet the original 10-working-day deadline in providing its stage 1 response and extended it to 8 May 2024. The landlord’s actions were consistent with its policy, and we consider them reasonable, as it kept the resident updated in advance of any delay.
  3. Although the landlord liaised with the resident prior to sending its formal response, the stage 1 response was not sent until 24 May 2024, which was 12 working days after the extended deadline. This was not appropriate, as the landlord failed twice to provide the stage 1 response within its policy timescale despite extending the deadline. This delay was also unfair to the resident, as it prolonged a resolution for her and prevented her from receiving a timely update to her complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation to put things right, which was consistent with our dispute resolution principles.
  4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 5 June 2024. Although this was 6 working days later, and 1 day outside of its policy timescale, the delay was not excessive and would not have caused the resident significant additional detriment. The resident provided additional information to the landlord on 17 June 2024, and the landlord telephoned the resident on 24 June 2024, acknowledging the additional information and discussing details of the complaint. It was good practice by the landlord to confirm the particulars of the complaint with the resident, as it showed her that the complaint was being taken seriously and allowed the landlord to understand the nature of the issues and prioritise any investigation accordingly.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. This was 45 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and significantly outside of its 20-working-day policy timescale. This was again unfair to the resident, as it prolonged a resolution for her, delayed her access to our Service, and was evidently frustrating for her especially as her complaint involved delays in the landlord taking action. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay, apologised to the resident, and offered her £100 compensation.
  6. Overall, a total award of £150 compensation was offered to the resident for the landlord’s complaint handling, which is considered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures identified above. We would have made a finding of some level of maladministration was it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failings and offering reasonable compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of repairs to the kitchen cupboards and garden gate.
    2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,215 to reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced in relation to the damp and mould, and associated repairs. This is made up of:
      1. An additional award of £600.
      2. £315 previously offered at stage 1.
      3. £300 previously offered at stage 2.
      4. This can be reduced by any amount already paid.
    3. Arrange an up to date inspection of the resident’s windows by a suitably qualified surveyor in order to establish their current condition. The resulting report should include the surveyor’s recommendations for a sustainable solution to address any issues identified. The landlord must send a copy of the surveyor’s report to the Ombudsman and the resident, and clearly set out:
      1. Its decision on the resident’s request for replacement windows in light of the surveyor’s report.
      2. Any interim action it proposes to take to remedy the current condition of the windows until they can be replaced.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and this Service with an action plan setting out what steps it is taking to resolve the damp and mould issues. This should include what works are to be carried out, and approximate timescale for completion. If the landlord decides that no works are necessary, then it must provide a written explanation to both the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not already done so:
    1. Pays the resident:
      1. The £200 compensation previously offered at stage 1 in relation to the outstanding repairs.
      2. The £150 compensation previously offered at stage 1 and 2 in relation to complaint handling.
      3. Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this payment is made.
    2. Considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This could include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
    3. Familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.
    4. Arranges for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.