Clarion Housing Association Limited (202415386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415386

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Loss of heating and hot water.
3. Lift repairs.
4. Concerns about the maintenance of communal areas.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy began on 5 August 2023. The property is a flat, which he occupies with his wife and 2 young children. The resident reported that his wife is disabled. The building was newly completed and handed over to the landlord in 2023, and the defects liability period ran from March 2023 to March 2024. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident first reported a loss of heating and hot water on 12 September 2023. This was an issue throughout the building and was not specific to the resident’s flat. The resident raised complaints on 26 and 29 May 2024 in which he stated that:
1. The loss of hot water was ongoing and he should be compensated for the occasions this had happened since September 2023.
2. He had experienced ASB from his neighbours, who were smoking drugs, vandalising and leaving mess in the corridor. The resident stated that this was causing him stress and he was concerned for his children.
3. The communal areas in the building were dirty and there should be increased security in the building.
On 10 June 2024, during a phone call with the landlord, the resident further stated that:
1. There were ongoing issues with the heating and hot water.
2. The lifts were not working.
3. The maintenance of the building was poor and the communal areas were dirty.
4. A neighbouring flat left rubbish in the corridor which was attracting vermin.
5. He had sent several emails to a staff member about the issues but had not received a response.
6. He was paying charges but the services received were poor.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 July 2024 in which it stated that:
1. It had acted in accordance with its policy and procedures regarding the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. It had conducted a site visit in June 2023 and found that the cleanliness levels were not up to standard. It had increased estate inspections from quarterly to monthly to ensure improvements were made.
3. A pest control contractor attended several times and in their final report conducted in May 2024, confirmed there was no evidence of mice. It said that further preventative measures had been carried out to reduce the likelihood of pests returning.
4. It had sent a letter to all residents to enforce block cleaning standards and expectations.
5. An action place was in place to resolve all reported issues, including ASB, cleanliness and pest control.
6. It was unable to identify a failing in relation to the lack of communication or action taken by staff members.
7. It acknowledged that there had been several communal issues that had impacted the resident’s enjoyment of his home and the landlord continued to demand that the root cause of the issues was identified and resolved by the build contractor.
8. It upheld the complaint due to the delays and inconvenience caused and apologised to the resident.
9. It offered a total of £470.78 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £200 for defects in the communal areas that have not been completed within the advised timescale.
  2. £175.78 for occasions the resident had no water supply due to a defect.
  3. £45 for occasions the resident had no heating due to a defect.
  4. £50 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 July 2024 in which he said he was dissatisfied with the complaint outcome. He stated that:
1. The landlord said someone had contacted him regarding the issues, but this was not true.
2. The issues were ongoing and had caused him and his family stress.
3. Cleanliness issues in the communal area, theft of parcels and lift issues were ongoing.
4. His wife and children got stuck in the lift, and his children were now scared to use the lifts.
5. His wife is disabled and the issues had caused her distress.
6. The compensation offered was not enough for the amount of suffering caused.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 December 2024 in which it stated that:
1. A new managing agent was in place and it hoped the resident had started to see an improvement in the cleanliness of the communal areas and better communication with residents.
2. It had made repeated efforts to get the building contractor and lift manufacturer to rectify the lift issues and it had now taken steps to legally enforce the contractors’ obligations to permanently rectify the defects.
3. It had engaged an independent lift specialist to inspect the lifts and give an opinion on their operation.
4. It offered a further £350 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £150 for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
  2. £200 in recognition of the issues that remained unresolved.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 December 2024. He stated that:
1. The outcome did not adequately address the issues and the compensation did not reflect the gravity of the situation or resolve the ongoing problems.
2. The issues including loss of heating and hot water, ASB and lift repairs were ongoing and continued to affect him.
3. Further action was necessary to ensure the matter was addressed in a fair and just manner.
4. In order to resolve his complaint, there should be:
  1. A further review of the situation.
  2. A more comprehensive solution.
  3. An increase in compensation.
In April 2025, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the issues had caused serious disruption, as well as emotional trauma and mental exhaustion to him and his family. The resident stated that:
1. His wife and children witnessed a traumatic incident. The landlord ignored the resident’s prior warnings and the same neighbours continued to cause distress.
2. The loss of heating and hot water caused physical discomfort and emotional strain, and his children had fallen ill more than once due to these conditions. He said that the lack of timely and clear communication by the landlord made each outage a source of panic and fear.
3. His children were scared to use the lift after being trapped inside. His wife is disabled and climbing the stairs causes her pain and distress.
4. The communal areas were consistently filthy, neglected and unhygienic.
5. The landlord said it had no record of the various complaints he had raised, and he felt that the landlord had ignored him.
6. The compensation offered was inadequate and did not reflect the trauma, sleepless nights and anxiety caused, as well as the impact on his children. The resident said he was also asking for justice, safety and dignity.

Assessment and findings

Scope

We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect the issues complained about have had on his and his family’s health and wellbeing. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health and the health of his family.

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

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it will log all reports of ASB and any referrals to statutory bodies and monitor the outcomes. It states the landlord may use a variety of interventions including meditation, acceptable behaviour contracts and warning letters to deter or prevent ASB. The policy sets out the threshold for when it will investigate reports of ASB.
The landlord has not provided us with any ASB reports made by the resident prior his complaint in May 2024. In his complaint, the resident said his neighbours were smoking drugs, vandalising and leaving mess in the corridor. He said he had reported this many times over the previous 6 months. The resident later reported issues relating to noise from the neighbouring flat.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of ASB reports and actions taken and providing these records to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that good records will enable a landlord to explain what has happened and ensures that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. The absence of ASB records has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation as we have been unable to assess whether appropriate action was taken in response to the resident’s reports. This amounts to a failing by the landlord to provide sufficient evidence.
The evidence suggests the landlord visited the neighbour in July 2024 regarding concerns raised about rubbish being left in the corridor. While this appears to have been a positive action, the landlord did not maintain contemporaneous notes of this visit, which it ought to have done. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that it updated the resident with the outcome of any discussions with the neighbour.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it had acted in accordance with its policy and procedures when dealing with the ASB issues. However, the landlord did not explain whether it logged the reports as ASB, or what actions it had taken to respond to the resident’s reports. This was a failing by the landlord to demonstrate that it had dealt with the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy.
Within an email to the landlord on 14 August 2024, the resident raised that the landlord had not explained how it planned to tackle the ASB and that the ASB was ongoing. The resident sent a further email on 29 August 2024 and raised the issue of rubbish outside the neighbour’s flat. Within this email, he stated the landlord had advised him to report issues to the police, and he was concerned that this would put him and his family at risk. While it is reasonable for landlords to refer residents to the police if criminal allegations are made, they should also ensure they undertake their own investigations into alleged ASB. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s concerns about his safety however, there is no evidence that it acknowledged his comments.
On 6 September 2024 the resident further reported that the corridor was filthy due to the neighbours. On 10 September 2024, the landlord wrote to all residents advising them not to leave food and litter in communal areas and that such behaviour constituted a breach of tenancy. This was appropriate action, but it is unclear whether the landlord considered taking any specific action in relation to the resident’s neighbour.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to communal cleaning, but it did not refer specifically to the reports the residents made about his neighbour. The resident had continued to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports and it ought to have considered its handling of the ASB in its stage 2 response.
Overall, there is no indication that the landlord properly engaged with the resident about his reports of ASB or took actions in line with its policy. The failings by the landlord to deal with the reports in accordance with its ASB policy amount to maladministration by the landlord. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. His ASB concerns remain ongoing. We have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident. We have made a further order for the landlord engage with the resident about his reports of ASB and consider what actions it will take to address the issue.

The landlord’s handling of loss of heating and hot water.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that an emergency repair can be classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. It states that any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the systems for supplying water and heating in good working order. The evidence indicates that the fault with the heating and hot water had occurred since the property was handed over to the landlord. The building’s defects liability period ran from March 2023 to March 2024, and during this time, the build contractor ought to have ensured the building systems were in working order.
The heating and hot water outages affected all residents in the block. The resident first reported loss of heating and hot water in September 2023. No evidence has been provided to reflect when services were restored on this occasion, and it is therefore unclear how long the resident was without heating and hot water. The landlord should have provided this information to us.
Following this, the landlord appointed an independent contractor to identify the fault, which was an appropriate step. The contractor produced a report which was issued to the build contractor. The landlord informed us that some improvements of the system were made by the build contractor following the independent contractor’s report, but this did not fully resolve the fault. The evidence provided is limited in relation to the steps taken following the contractor’s report. The landlord should maintain a clear audit trail of repairs and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman. However, the evidence provided is not comprehensive in relation what works were done and when.
Another loss of service in the block occurred in February 2024. The issue was reported at 5am on 11 February 2024 and resolved at 6pm on 12 February 2024, indicating a loss of heating and hot water for almost 2 full days. Following this, the landlord wrote to the build contractor and stated that the cause of the fault needed to be determined as a matter of urgency.
The issue occurred again on 29 February 2024. The loss of heating and hot water was reported at 8:35pm and restored on 1 March 2024 at 4am. As such the resident was without hearting and hot water for a period of approximately 8 hours on this occasion.
The landlord sent a further letter to the build contractor on 8 March 2024 advising that it would engage an independent mechanical and electrical expert to assist in undertaking a thorough investigation of the heating and hot water systems. On 24 July 2024, a notice was served to the build contractor regarding the landlord’s intent to appoint alternative contractors. This expressed that the landlord had lost confidence with the build contractor’s ability to rectify the defects.
The resident reported a further loss of hot water on 11 August 2024. The landlord has not provided information on how long this loss lasted for.
The landlord sent monthly newsletters to residents from August 2024, which gave updates on outstanding issues. It is unclear whether the landlord provided monthly updates to residents prior to August 2024. However, the introduction of the newsletter reflects that the landlord began to make reasonable attempts to update all residents. There is no evidence to indicate that it regularly updated residents prior to this.
In its August 2024 newsletter, the landlord confirmed that it had instructed its own contractor to review the heating system. In October 2024, it confirmed that the contractor had completed the audit and would write to the building contractor with the outcome. It said that further delay from the build contractor would enable the landlord to resolve the defects with input from other contractors. Following this, the landlord appointed a contractor to complete a programme of works to ensure that that the heating system was set up properly and to service each flat’s heating interface unit. In its March 2025 newsletter, the landlord confirmed that its contractor had completed all rectification works and the heating and hot water system was in working order.
We would expect the landlord to treat a total loss of heating and hot water as an emergency repair, particularly during winter months. From the information provided, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe on each occasion. The landlord ought to have provided clear evidence of repairs that took place, along with evidence of whether it responded in line with the 24 hour timeframe for emergency repairs.
It is also unclear how long it took to restore the heating and hot water on some occasions. At stage 1, the landlord offered £45 compensation for loss of heating which was calculated at £5 per day. This therefore indicates that there was a total of 9 days that the issue occurred between the start of the resident’s tenancy in August 2023 and the July 2024 stage 1 response.
It is clear that distress, inconvenience and disruption were caused to the resident and his family due to the occasions his property was without heating and hot water. The total number of days the issue affected his property is unclear. However, the evidence indicates losses on at least 10 days (9 days calculated at stage 1 and a further occasion in Augst 2024) within the period covered by the complaint. Further instances have occurred since the stage 2 response. The resident has 2 young children, and the loss of heating and hot water likely caused significant concern. The resident informed us his children became ill after a period without heating. It is also noted that the resident’s wife is disabled however, the landlord stated it was not aware of this until the resident raised his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing states that landlords should have access to and offer residents temporary practical help during a period without heating or hot water, such as electric heaters. Some of the heating and hot water outages occurred during winter months, including the 2-day loss in February 2024.
The landlord should have offered temporary heaters to the resident, as well as any other assistance to mitigate the impact of the loss of service. There is no evidence that the landlord made efforts to understand the needs of the household or assess the impact of the ongoing issues on the resident and his family. The landlord should be aware of the needs and vulnerabilities of residents and understand how a loss of services might affect residents, so that it can respond accordingly. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord assessed the impact or took any action to mitigate the loss of heating and hot water, which was a failing.
The evidence indicates that the landlord took various proactive steps to engage with the build contractor to resolve the defects. It acted appropriately by arranging its own contractors to inspect and complete the works. However, a significant amount of time elapsed before the defects were resolved so that the system was reliable. This was largely due to the failure by the build contractor to complete the repairs within the defects period. However, as per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the systems for supplying water and heating in good working order. Further, the landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairing any defects or ‘snags’ in new-build homes. As such, while it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue the build contractor, this should not have been at the expense of ensuring timely repairs of the heating system to prevent further losses of service. The landlord still had a responsibility to fulfil its obligations under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy. The delay in fully resolving the defects was therefore a further failing.
The landlord offered compensation to the resident for the occasions that he had no heating and hot water within its July 2024 stage 1 response, which was appropriate. However, the landlord did not comment on repairs to the heating and hot water systems in its stage 2 complaint response, despite the resident continuing to raise his dissatisfaction with the issue after the stage 1. This was also a failing by the landlord.
In order to remedy the effect of the failings identified in this report, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of lift repairs.

The landlord’s policy states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to repair and maintain any shared parts of the building. The evidence indicates that the issues with the functionality of the lifts in the building were ongoing since the building was completed and therefore should have been resolved by the build contractor and the lift manufacturer during the defects period.
The landlord arranged for an independent survey of the lifts which took place on 24 July 2023, prior to the resident’s tenancy starting. The survey found that all 4 lifts had defects impacting their reliability. The landlord stated that the build contractor did not resolve the issues identified in the report. The landlord has not provided copies of the communication with the build contractor or lift manufacturer about this survey. It has therefore not been possible for us to assess whether the landlord made reasonable efforts to engage with them to progress the repairs.
The evidence indicates that the landlord arranged a further independent inspection which identified an extensive list of defects on 19 July 2024. It is noted that a year had elapsed between this report and 2023 report. It is unclear what action, if any, was taken to progress the repairs of the defects during this time.
The landlord stated that the managing agent inspected the lifts weekly. It also provided extensive reports of the lift manufacturer’s inspections. The lift manufacturer’s records show that multiple issues were reported during 2023 and 2024 and the reports reflect that remedial works were undertaken. While this shows works were routinely and quickly undertaken to address issues as they arose, the repairs did not appear to resolve the root cause of the defects, and the lifts remained unreliable.
In its August 2024 newsletter, the landlord stated that it was holding the build contractor and lift manufacturer to account. It said that it would allow both parties the opportunity to remedy the defects, which could take time.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to continue to pursue the build contractor, it still had an obligation to fulfil its repairs obligations within the required timeframes. The landlord has a responsibility to carry out such repairs and it would have been appropriate for it to source its own contractor at this stage given the length of time the issues had been ongoing.
The landlord issued an update regarding the lifts to all residents in October 2024. The landlord apologised for the delays in resolving the lift issues and said it had taken steps to legally enforce the build and lift contractors to permanently rectify the defects. It said a legal notice had been sent to both contactors and if they failed to respond, the landlord would engage an alternative contractor. Given the lack of engagement from the contractors, this was a reasonable action by the landlord.
The landlord also engaged an independent lift specialist to inspect the lifts for the purpose of litigation. This report further identified various issues with the lifts. In November 2024, the landlord informed residents that, following legal action, the lift manufacturer had agreed to survey the lifts and would provide a written proposal for rectification works. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its lawyers had sent further legal notices to both contractors that week stating that they must provide final proposals to fully remedy the lift issues.
In January 2025, the landlord informed us that works to the lifts were being undertaken by the manufacturer and were due to be completed by 7 March 2025. In its March 2025 newsletter, the landlord stated that the manufacturer had completed all rectification works and an independent lift expert was undertaking an audit of the work done. In April 2025, the resident informed us that there had not been any recent issues with the lifts.
Overall, the landlord undertook reasonable steps to compel the contractors to complete the work, and the legal action pursued by the landlord in October 2024 resulted in the manufacturer carrying out the repairs. However, it is noted that almost 18 months had passed between the start of the resident’s tenancy and the lift issues being repaired. Given the poor engagement from the contractors, it would have been prudent for the landlord to consider sourcing its own contractor to resolve the defects to mitigate the detriment on residents of the unreliable lifts. Further, as stated above, there is a lack of evidence to reflect what action the landlord took to progress the repairs in the 12 months after the July 2023 survey. This indicates a failing by the landlord to act quickly to try to resolve the lift defects.
We recognise the effect that the repeated lift issues have had on the resident and his family. The resident reported there was an occasion that his wife and child were stuck in the lift, and his children were now scared to use the lifts He also told us that his wife is disabled and she struggles to use the stairs. It is clear that distress and inconvenience were caused due to the ongoing issues.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £400 compensation in its stage 1 and 2 responses for defects in communal areas that had not been resolved. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of what the compensation was for. It is assumed that the amount offered was partially in recognition of the lift issues. However, given the lack of information, we cannot determine whether the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of the lift defects. Given the delays in resolving the lift issues and the lack of clarity around the amount of compensation offered, we have made an order below for additional compensation to be paid to the resident to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the lift defects.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the maintenance of communal areas.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states its contractors will carry out repairs in all communal areas they have responsibility for. It states that, dependent on the nature of the work, the repairs should always be completed within 28 days. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states that it will arrange for regular cleaning of communal areas including bin stores.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that all estates with communal areas will be inspected twice a year, and where necessary, this can be as frequent as every 4 weeks where serious persistent issues are identified.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will remove racist and other offensive graffiti within 24 hours.
In his complaint, the resident said that the communal areas of the building were unclean and dirty, and that a neighbouring flat left rubbish outside which was attracting vermin. This is linked to his reports of ASB. The resident stated he had reported the cleaning issues to the landlord previously. The landlord has not provided the resident’s earlier reports to us, or any evidence that it undertook estate inspections in response to his reports. The landlord should ensure it maintains comprehensive records of issues reported and action taken, so that a clear audit trail can be provided. The landlord has not provided us with such records and has therefore not demonstrated that it carried out inspections in accordance with its neighbourhood management policy.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had conducted a site visit in early June 2023 and found that the cleanliness levels were not up to standard. While this was an appropriate action, it has not provided us with a record of this inspection. The landlord stated that it had increased the inspections from quarterly to monthly to monitor improvements and that it had sent a letter to all residents regarding block cleaning standards and expectations.
While increasing inspections was an appropriate action, the landlord has not evidenced that it carried these out monthly after the stage 1 response. We would expect a landlord to keep records of regular inspections it undertook so as to track and monitor the delivery of its services and contracts. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it increased the frequency of inspections as per the action set out in its stage 1 response.
The landlord has not provided its service level agreement in relation to cleaning and grounds maintenance for the block, and it is unclear how often the cleaning contractor was scheduled to attend. The landlord should have ensured effective contracts management with its third party provider to ensure the contract was being fulfilled.
In the October 2024 newsletter, the landlord informed residents that an external cleaning company had been appointed and the contract was for 2 cleaners for 37 hours per week. This indicates that the concerns about the standard of cleaning remained ongoing, and the landlord took action to address this by appointing a new contractor, which was reasonable. Within its November 2024 newsletter, the landlord confirmed that the new cleaning regime was up and running.
Overall, there were some failings by the landlord to give proper consideration to the standard of cleaning in the first instance, and to demonstrate that it carried out monthly inspections. However, the landlord did take positive action to address the issues raised by appointing a new cleaning contractor.
As noted above, the resident told us that the problems with communal cleaning and maintenance have continued after the stage 2 response. It is recommended that the landlord investigate any recent issues and take necessary steps to ensure that its contractors are carrying out these services in-line with its service level agreement. It should also state what steps it will take to continue monitoring the standard of cleaning.
The resident also complained that the front door of the building did not lock and was constantly left open, which meant that the building was insecure. The landlord acknowledged that the door was not in working order and provided updates on the repairs to the door within its monthly newsletters. The landlord informed residents that repairs had been unsuccessful and it would replace the door at its own cost. In its stage 2 response, it said that the managing agent was working hard to resolve the problem with the door, but it did not state when the door would be replaced. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have provided an estimated timeframe for the issue to be resolved.
Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord informed residents that it was arranging for an audit of the access system. In March 2025, it stated that it was now in receipt of the access control inspection and the door could be replaced. In April 2025, the resident informed us that the entrance doors were not working and he was concerned about the security of the building.
The landlord regularly communicated with residents about the progress of the front door repairs, and although the information is limited, it appears that the repairs were not easily resolved. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s safety concerns. It is unclear whether the landlord considered any actions that could be taken to mitigate the risk of the door being left unlocked, which would have been an appropriate action given the delays in completing the repairs. We have made a recommendation below for the landlord to consider whether there is any action it could take in future if similar issues occur.
The resident also reported inappropriate graffiti on the communal walls in September and October 2024, and the landlord informed him it had asked the managing agent to clean the walls. On 1 November 2024, the resident complained that the graffiti was still present and was getting worse. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the graffiti has now been removed however, it is unclear when this took place.
The landlord has evidenced that it raised the issue with the managing agent following the resident’s reports, which was appropriate. However, it is unreasonable that at least 2 months lapsed before the graffiti was removed. It is clear that the resident found the graffiti offensive, and the landlord did not act in accordance with its ASB policy to remove it within 24 hours.
Overall, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to the failings identified regarding communal maintenance. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the poor standard of cleaning in the block, and incurred time and trouble reporting the graffiti in the building.
The landlord offered the resident £400 for defects in the communal area that had not been completed within the advised timescale. As stated above, the landlord has not offered a breakdown of what defects this includes. However, it is assumed that this partially relates to the front entrance door defects. We have made a further order below for additional compensation to be paid to the resident to remedy the further failings we have identified regarding communal maintenance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and a provide a full response within a further 10 working days. It states it will acknowledge escalation requests in 10 working days and issue a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The policy states that if it needs additional time, it will agree this with the resident and aim not to extend this by more than 20 working days.
The resident raised his complaint on 26 May 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this 9 working days later, on 10 June 2024. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 23 July 2024, which was 31 days after its acknowledgment of the complaint. There was therefore a delay of 21 days outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 12 August 2024. It stated it would provide the complaint response by 5 September 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2024 and apologised that it had not updated him regarding the complaint response. The landlord stated it was unable to provide a date for the response but would update the resident every 5 days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must decide whether an extension to the 20-day timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 2 December 2024. This was 60 days in excess of the 20-day timeframe for stage 2 responses and was therefore a significant delay, that was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord identified the delay and offered the resident £150 compensation.
The total of £200 for the delays in complaint responses was reasonable to remedy the complaint handling failings, and a finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of loss of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of communal maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable to resolve the complaint handling failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the £820.78 offered within its stage 1and 2 responses if it has not already done so.
3. Pay the resident a further £550 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident rather than credited to his rent account. The amount is made up as follows:
  1. £200 for the failings associated with the reports of ASB.
  2. £150 for the failings associated with loss of hot water and heating.
  3. £100 for the failings associated with lift repairs.
  4. £100 for the failings associated with communal maintenance.
4. Engage with the resident about his ASB reports and establish whether they meet the threshold to open an ASB investigation. The landlord should then write to the resident and the Ombudsman setting out an action plan for addressing the reports of ASB.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe stipulated.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Investigates any recent issues and takes necessary steps to ensure that its cleaning contractor is carrying out services in-line with its service level agreement. It should also state what steps it will take to continue monitoring the standard of cleaning.
2. Conducts staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections.
3. Works with the resident to understand the needs of the household so that it can provide an appropriate response in future to emergency repairs and mitigations that may need to be offered.
4. Considers what actions it can take to make the building safe if issues with the front entrance door reoccur in future.
5. Reviews whether it has received other complaints from residents in the block about heating and hot water loss and consider the redress provided.