ForHousing Limited (202118101)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118101

ForHousing Limited

12 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of leaks at the property.
2. Handling of repairs at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a two bedroom first floor flat, on an assured tenancy, since 25 October 2004.
There was a leak at the property when resident moved in, in 2004. He made a claim against the landlord in 2012 and the case was settled and the repairs carried out, in 2016.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, and informed him that on 4 January 2021, work would start on the following, in the building:
1. Replacement of flat entrance doors.
2. Replacement of windows (where identified as necessary).
3. Balcony works.
4. Internal painting to communal areas.
5. Communal area improvements.
6. Communal electrics.
On 21 July 2021, the resident reported that in April 2021 the landlord did work at his property, and it resulted in a leak in his kitchen, coming from the balcony of the property above. An issue he had had before, and that had been initially repaired in 2016. He was contacted by someone the following day, and he gave them information about the leak. The landlord records it sent someone to the property on 22 July 2021, 9 and 28 September 2021, as well as 1 and 4 October 2021; but, they were unable to gain access.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord recorded that the property above had been investigated, and it needed to now look at the resident’s property. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord by live chat, to discuss outstanding issues. The resident reported a leak going in to the communal area, from the roof. A contractor was sent the same day to repair the leak, as was an electrician, to make the electrics safe.
The landlord’s job records dated 19 October 2021, say that the balcony at the neighbouring property needed treating, in order to stop water leaking in to the resident’s property. However, on 20 October, contractors attended the resident’s property, rather than the property above. The resident therefore reported the issue again on the same day.
The resident contacted the landlord at the end of December 2021 and used the live chat on 12 January 2022 as he wished to speak with someone about the outstanding work, and he complained there was another leak by the communal front door.
On 17 January 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the leak from the balcony not being repaired. On 20 January, the landlord acknowledged the complaint, apologised and said there was a job created to deal with the matter and any repair work needed to the ceiling would also be done. On 24 January 2022, the resident was advised a contractor would be attending the neighbour’s property the following day to repair the balcony by asphalting the floor. It records the repair was completed on 25 January 2022.
The landlord sent a letter on 10 March 2022, acknowledging the resident’s complaint, about a leak outside the communal front door, that had been raised on 12 January 2022.
On 28 March 2022 and 4 April 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response. He was told by the landlord on 4 April, that it would chase the response up for him.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 12 April 2022, said the resident would be contacted and advised about an inspection taking place to clear a drain and fit a new gully and pipe work.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord sent a response to the resident’s complaint, which it said it received on 25 February 2022 via this Service. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in carrying out the investigation and sending its response. It also apologised for the poor communication in the process of carrying out the investigation.
2. The complaint was about a leak outside the communal front door to the block. It acknowledged he had reported this several times since November 2004 and despite it being attended to, there was still an issue with it. It said he had reported an issue on 12 January advising that nobody had attended following his latest report, or had taken any action.
3. It arranged for an inspection on 14 April, and apologised for the time it had taken to do that. Following the inspection, works were agreed for a drainage engineer to attend to inspect and clear the drain and fit a new gully and pipe work on 28 April.
4. It apologised that its service had fallen short, and said the resident could request a review, within 15 working days.
An internal email sent by the landlord’s staff on 13 May 2022, confirmed a kitchen was ready to be installed at the resident’s property; however, the windows were not due to be replaced until 2045.
On 7 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident, and arranged for him to attend a panel meeting, on 13 July 2022, in order to review his complaint. During the panel meeting, the resident raised the issue of other repairs, in addition to the leaks.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to visit the property by 19 July 2022, and to then arrange a painter to visit the following week, in order to carry out, outstanding works.
The landlord’s records refer to the neighbouring property’s roof still leaking in to the resident’s property. There was a leak from the downpipe on the balcony reported on 20 July 2022. A job was raised with a target date of 2 September 2022. A contractor attended on 21 July 2022, but found no issue.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, following the panel meeting. The letter was the landlord’s stage 2 response, and it noted the following:
1. The resident had complained about a leak outside the communal front door. Although this had been resolved, it had been reported several times and caused damage to the flooring. His complaint now was about general repairs.
2. In 2016, the resident started a disrepair claim, and received compensation for that. However, he claimed:
  1. Plastering remained outstanding.
  2. A radiator had been taken off the wall.
  3. Boxing in of the pipes in the kitchen was outstanding.
  4. Tiles on the kitchen sink had been removed.
  5. Plastering and decorating work needed to be completed.
  6. A new kitchen was due to be fitted.
3. As a result of upgrading the pipework in the block, he had been left with a leak in to the bathroom that had not been attended to.
4. Although the block where the property was, had been repainted, the paint was now peeling off.
5. The electric cupboard outside his flat looked like it had been nailed up.
6. He had been advised that the block would get new windows as part of the upgrade but this had not happened.
7. When the intercom system was replaced within the block, he did not get a new handset and therefore had no working intercom.
8. He had requested a new bathroom but this had been refused.
9. He had also requested a new lock on his front door as it had broken.
10. As the resident did not have a telephone number, it was hard to arrange for work to be done.
The landlord then addressed the complaint, and said:
1. The panel was unable to assess whether the stage 1 investigation had been carried out correctly, or whether the outcome was appropriate as it had not considered the elements raised at the review meeting.
2. It apologised that the complaint had not been raised as requested in March which would have led to a more thorough investigation.
3. The repairs history showed a great number of ‘no accesses’ in trying to carry out repairs which had stemmed from a leak to the balcony at a neighbouring property. This leak was repaired but it was sorry some of the repairs had still not been completed.
4. Work was being done, to replace the intercom at the resident’s property.
5. Several attempts had been made to schedule work in the kitchen, but it would ask a colleague to confirm dates with the resident, to do the work.
6. It arranged for an inspection of the communal area and concluded:
  1. Flaking paint would be rectified.
  2. A deep clean of the floor would be done.
  3. The electric cupboard door needed to be replaced.
  4. Windows were fit for purpose, but any issues going forward needed to be logged.
7. It provided details for a named member of for the resident to contact, if there were further issues.
8. The bathroom replacement was not approved, but any issue should be raised through the contact provided.
9. An inspection led to an order being raised for a multipoint front door lock.
10. A full central heating system had been approved.
11. It had requested a further inspection of the leak into the bathroom and said any remedial works be raised following this.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £500, to recognise the frustration caused by the delays in carrying out the repairs and for the inaccurate information contained in the complaint investigation responses.
On 10 August 2022, the resident contacted this Service and referred to a leak in his kitchen that was going in to his bathroom, and a leak outside the communal front door, which had gone on for an number of years.
On 27 September 2022, the resident chased the landlord, regarding the ongoing leak from the balcony. The resident said he had complained on 13 January 2022 and wanted his complaint passed to the next stage. The landlord recorded that the resident said he now had mould on the walls of the property; a job was then planned for 11 October 2022.
A further report of a leak from the balcony above, was made on 30 September 2022. A job was raised with a target date of 11 November 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 October 2022 and acknowledged he had reported a leak from the balcony above him. It said as more than 8 months had passed without incident, it needed to explore the cause in case it was something new. It said it had raised a job to inspect the balcony. A contractor attended on 4 October 2022 but could not gain access.
On 11 October 2022, a damp survey of the property was carried out, which found:
1. In the bathroom:
  1. Mould spotting to bathroom ceiling – fans were outdated in the property and there needed to be a mould clean and stain block.
  2. The resident’s drains on the adjoining wall appeared to be leaking, although no damp readings were present internally. There was salt damage around guttering and repairs to the pointing were required. An inspection was scheduled that week.
2. In the kitchen:
  1. There was leak damage from water ingress. Damage to wood that plumbing pipes were connected to.
  2. Above balcony door lintel had a crack directly adjoining damage to the wall. Remove plaster from above door and timber, apply membrane, float and skim.
  3. Radiator had been removed since 2016. Tenant had radiator but it was damaged to rust. Remove mould beading around door, hack off plaster, membrane, float and skim.
The works identified from the survey, were scheduled to start on 21 November 2022; but, the landlord was unable to access the property. It is unclear what transpired following this.
The resident reported a leak from the back of the WC on 30 June 2023. The landlord attended the same day, but was unable to gain access.
The landlord has confirmed that the works are still ongoing and that another damp inspection was to take place on 25 July 2023.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The Tenancy Agreement and relevant statute

The Tenancy Agreement says it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Tenancy Agreement says it is the landlord’s responsibility, “in the case of flats and maisonettes, to take reasonable steps to keep all communal areas and equipment provided by us in reasonable repair and fit for use by occupiers and visitors to your home including: common entrances, halls and passageways, stairways and lifts lighting and security systems. rubbish chutes. bin stores and drying areas.”

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Redress Procedure (the procedure) says:
1. a Case Officer will initially try and resolve an expression of dissatisfaction. If they cannot do that, the case will be transferred to a Responding Officer and the Case Officer will inform the complainant that they will contact them within two working days with an offer of redress.
2. The officer who is in receipt of this referral will be known as the Responding Officer. The Responding Officer will respond to the Case Officer with a suitable Offer of Redress by the date and time stipulated by the Case Officer.
3. On receipt of the offer the Case Officer will communicate it to the complainant and seek their agreement. If the offer is agreed the Case Officer will confirm this with the Responding Officer who will initiate and deliver the remedy as agreed.
4. The Case Officer will contact the complainant every 10 working days until the agreed remedy is delivered in order to keep them updated with progress. They will then contact the complainant on the day of delivery to establish that the remedy has been delivered to their satisfaction. If the complainant is satisfied with the remedy the Case Officer will close the case. 9.
5. The Case Officer will remain the point of contact for the complainant until the remedy is delivered to their satisfaction.
The procedure states, an “Expression Of Dissatisfaction will be referred to the Customer Feedback & Improvement Team as Responding Officer in the following circumstances;
1. The Case Officer considers the matter represents a clear service failure (Rather than a minor service breakdown).
2. The case requires more sensitive case management on the basis of the customer’s vulnerability, the severity and /or complexity of the service failure or potential risk of reputational damage or regulatory non-compliance.
3. The Case Officer cannot agree an Offer of Redress that is acceptable to the complainant.
4. The Case Officer does not consider the Offer of Redress from the Responding Officer to be adequate, irrespective of whether it has been agreed by the complainant.
5. The complainant wishes the Expression Of Dissatisfaction to be escalated irrespective of whether an Offer of Redress has been agreed.
6. Immediately on failure to deliver the Offer of Redress as agreed or to the complainant’s satisfaction.”
It then says the Case Manager will contact the complainant within 2 working days of escalation, and then undertake a full investigation into the complaint. It will provide the complainant with a response as soon as possible but no later than 10 working days following the date of escalation. The response will be by telephone and followed up in writing unless an alternative format is agreed with the complainant.
The case stays open for a further 10 working days to allow the complainant to consider the response and raise any concerns. It they are dissatisfied, they can ask for a review of the decision. If that happens, an initial review occurs within two working days, and a review will take place, with a response being issued within 5 working days from the date of escalation. Alternatively, a Complaints Panel may be required. If that is the case, a panel should be set up within 21 working days of escalation. Once the panel has heard the complaint, the complainant will be contacted and informed of the outcome of the panel within 5 working days of the hearing.
The landlord’s Redress Policy says the redress process “comprises of three distinct stages.
1. First Response focusses on identifying and agreeing an appropriate remedy to the complainant’s Initial Complaint within 2 working days. All Initial Complaints will be subjected to initial critical triage in order to establish the details of the complaint, understand the cause and attempt to offer a suitable remedy that meets the complainant’s expectations. The person who receives the complaint will take ownership and responsibility for handling it. They will act as the complainant’s single point of contact until an agreed remedy has been delivered and/or the Initial Complaint has been escalated.
2. Stage 1 Investigation involves a full investigation into the complaint by a manager from the relevant service area within 10 working days of escalation of the Initial Complaint.
3. Stage 2 Review comprises of an independent review of the complaint carried out by the Customer Feedback & Improvement Team within 5 working days of escalation or within 21 working days of escalation where a Complaints Panel is required.”
The landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Policy says it “will endeavour to ensure that responsive repairs are completed in one visit, ‘right first time’.” It “will arrange appointments, at the first point of reporting, for all non- emergency internal and external repairs. Where a repair cannot be completed on first visit and follow on works are required, then a further appointment will be arranged with the tenant before the operative leaves the property.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks at the property.

Leak from the balcony

On 21 July 2021, the resident reported a leak coming from the balcony above his property, entering his kitchen. The landlord attempted to obtain access to the property on five occasions between 22 July and 4 October, without success. The landlord then sent a contractor to the resident’s property on 20 October; however, it is noted access was actually needed to the neighbouring property, so the repair remained outstanding. No further action seems to have been taken until the resident followed up with the landlord on 12 January and 17 January 2022. The landlord did apologise to the resident, which was appropriate due to the amount of time the repair was unresolved, and the work was completed on 25 January 2022.
The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord could not carry out repairs without access to the property. However, it was not reasonable for it to take 6 months to complete the repair. The landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Policy says it will arrange appointments, at the first point of reporting, for all non-emergency internal and external repairs. However, no evidence has been provided to show it agreed appointment times with the resident, in order to avoid issues with access. Had the landlord arranged an appointment time with the resident, it is likely the repair could have been completed a lot sooner than it was. The landlord was not proactive in its approach to completing the necessary repairs, and the resident was left to chase the matter as a result.
The landlord sent a contractor to review a report of a further leak from the downpipe on the balcony on 20 July 2022, within 24 hours which was a reasonable response. Although, no issue was found at that time. A further report of a leak from the balcony was made on 30 September 2022 and although the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property on 4 October, it was unable to gain access. In addition, following a damp survey taking place on 11 October 2022, the landlord scheduled repair work to start on 21 November, but it is noted no access could be obtained. However, again, no evidence has been provided to show the landlord agreed the date and time of these appointments with the resident, in advance, which is unreasonable, and the resident says it remains unresolved.

Leak in to the communal area

The resident reported a leak in to the communal area, on 1 October 2021. The landlord complied with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, to ensure the communal area was kept in repair as it arranged for a contractor to attend the property the same day to repair the leak. In addition, an electrician was sent to make the electrics safe.
The resident reported a further leak in the communal area on 12 January 2022; however, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 10 March, nearly two months later. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond sooner. However, that it did not was inappropriate. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident then chased the landlord about the matter on 28 March and 4 April 2022. It finally responded to the report on 26 April; about 3 and a half months after the resident reported an additional leak, and arranged for the drain to be cleared and a new gully to be fitted on 28 April which seems to have resolved the problem at that time. However, there was clearly an unreasonable delay in the landlord dealing with the leak in the communal area and the resident has said the leak has not been resolved.

Leak in the bathroom/WC

Following a panel meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident on 8 August 2022 acknowledging he had reported that as a result of upgrading the pipework in the block, he had been left with a leak in the bathroom that had not been attended to. This was supported by the findings of a damp survey dated 11 October 2022, which identified there was leak damage from water ingress in the bathroom.
The planned work to repair this leak, along with other work, was meant to start on 21 November, but the landlord was unable to access the property. It is unclear what transpired following this but no evidence has been provided to show the leak has been repaired, and this is unreasonable. The resident then reported a further leak in the bathroom, from the back of the WC on 30 June 2023. The landlord attended the same day, but again, was unable to gain access.
The evidence shows a pattern of behaviour on the landlord’s part, when dealing with repairs, that it does not seem to have learnt from. There are several examples of the landlord having an issue reported, and because it did not give a specific date for when someone would do the repair, instead it gave a target date, the resident did not know when to expect a visit. Therefore, there are a number of occasions when a contractor attended the property, and could not gain access. Then, knowing the issue therefore remained outstanding, the landlord did not always arrange for the contractor to return, either at all, or promptly, which is inappropriate.
Bearing in mind the landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Policy aims to get it “right first time”, it certainly failed to do that, in this case. The landlord should therefore review its process of how it manages and monitors ongoing repairs, in order to ensure issues reported are not forgotten. In addition, when arranging to carry out work at the resident’s property, it should ensure the resident is made aware of the specific date a repair will be carried out in advance, in order to ensure access can be provided.
The resident has indicated to this Service, that the leaks in his bathroom, kitchen and in the communal area are still outstanding, despite the leaks being reported initially by July 2021, and then discussed in the panel meeting on 13 July 2022. The landlord has accepted repairs are ongoing.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £500 due to the delay in dealing with the repairs. This was following a panel meeting, where not only the leaks were discussed, but many other issues reported by the resident. It is not clear whether the £500 offered was for the delay to all repairs or just the leaks, but taking this offer as being just for the delay in dealing with the leaks, it is not sufficient recompense in the circumstances.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a breakdown for the compensation. The leaks were ongoing for differing periods and the resident would have been affected by each differently. Providing a breakdown and apportioning an amount of compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing each leak may have resulted in a more proportionate offer of compensation being made. In addition, it would have demonstrated that the landlord had taken the time to understand the complaint and how the resident had been affected.
In this case, as the resident has suffered significant inconvenience having to deal with leaks from in the property for over two years. He has had to chase the landlord a number of times and the issues remain unresolved; therefore, the compensation should be increased from £500 to £1,000.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

During the panel meeting, the resident advised that he was unhappy that a number of repairs were outstanding within the property. He added that some of the repairs were outstanding from the disrepair claim in 2016. In response, the landlord apologised that some of the repairs remained outstanding and advised that an inspection, and repairs, had been arranged accordingly.
The landlord’s response in terms of progressing matters was appropriate; however, it is unclear why some of the repairs had not been remedied sooner. As the issues were raised at stage 2, it was not possible for the landlord to investigate the matter fully. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree to do so as action going forward. That the landlord did not was a missed opportunity for it to investigate the resident’s concerns and to see how it could put things right. Given that the landlord’s handling of the repairs raised by the resident have not been investigated, it would be reasonable for the landlord to look into his concerns now. Undertaking such a review will allow the landlord to review its own handling of each repair, consider whether there had been a failing in its repairs management and consider the impact on the resident.
In the circumstances, it may be necessary for the landlord to review its records dating back to 2016. Once the review is complete the landlord should consider how long each repair has been outstanding and it should make an offer of compensation to the resident. The compensation award should be broken down so that the inconvenience caused by each repair being outstanding can be fully considered. This will help to ensure that the landlord’s award is proportionate in the circumstances. If the landlord is unclear about the repairs which the resident is concerned about, it should contact him to obtain the necessary details.
It is also noted that the resident has advised that the radiator has yet to be replaced. However, it is unclear whether the other repairs have now been remedied. The evidence that is available suggests that repairs remain outstanding despite the landlord’s assurance in August 2022 that the necessary repairs would be undertaken without further delay.
The landlord should now inspect the property and assess whether any repairs remain outstanding. If so, a works schedule should be compiled within four weeks of the inspection and the landlord should endeavour to carry out any repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident complained about the landlord’s response to the communal door leak on 12 January. On 17 January 2022, he also complained about the leak from the neighbour’s balcony in to his kitchen.
In this case, there is no evidence of the landlord initially addressing the resident’s first complaint about the leak in the communal area. Three working days after the second complaint was made, the landlord apologised for the balcony leak issue going on so long and arranged a repair on 25 January 2022. It did not though agree a remedy within two working days, nor did it deal with it as a complaint at stage one, as per the Procedure.
The resident’s complaint dated 12 January, about the leak by the communal front door, was not acknowledged by the landlord until 10 March 2022; 21 working days after it was made. On 26 April 2022, the landlord sent a response to the resident’s complaint; this was 74 working days after the complaint was made. The reply was only sent, after the landlord had been prompted by this Service and after the resident chased for a response. He had chased the landlord on 7 March and been told he would receive a reply by 24 March. He then had to chase again on 28 March and 4 April 2022.
The leak in the communal area was fixed at some point between the landlord’s response on 26 April, and the panel meeting on 13 July 2022. However, it is clear the landlord failed to adhere to its Redress Procedure. It did not attempt to resolve the matter informally; therefore, the complaint should have been escalated to stage one. Its response on 26 April 2022 was a stage one response, although the letter itself did not say that, and did not set out the different stages, to the resident. It should though, in accordance with the Redress Procedure have updated the resident, every 10 working days until a remedy was agreed and delivered, and this did not happen.
The landlord did escalate the resident’s concerns at a panel meeting in July 2022, but this was at stage two, when the complaints had not all been addressed at stage one. While the landlord said the resident could request a review, it did not make it clear to him where he was in relation to its Redress Policy or Procedure.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in accordance with its Redress Procedure. The landlord acknowledged a delay in responding to its complaints, but failed to consider the impact this had on the resident. He had to chase for a response, while still dealing with a number of outstanding issues at the property. It also made no attempt to offer compensation to the resident, for its poor complaint handling.
Overall, there were many failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. This compounded the failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues, and constitutes maladministration. Due to the delays, the failure to adhere to its own policies and procedures and that no remedy was proposed to recognise this, the landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of leaks at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed dealing with the reported leaks at the property. There were failings that caused the resident a significant amount of distress, time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord responded appropriately when the issue of the outstanding repairs was raised. However, it is unclear whether the repairs have been remedied since. In addition, the landlord should review its handling of the repairs and ensure that the resident is compensated appropriately.
There were lengthy delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and the landlord failed to provide proactive updates to the resident about the delays.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified within it;
2. Pay the resident £1,600 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 compensation for delays in handling the reported leaks (if it has not done so already).
  2. An additional £500 compensation for the distress caused by the delays handling the reported leaks.
  3. £600 compensation for the delays and inconvenience due to its poor complaints handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to liaise with the resident and review all outstanding work needed at his property and:
1. Produce a schedule of works for all outstanding repairs.
2. Produce a schedule of works for all outstanding leaks at the property.
3. Investigate:
  1. When each issue was reported.
  2. Whether the work/repair has been carried out.
  3. How long the issue has been/was outstanding.
4. Consider compensation in line with its Redress Procedure and this Service’s Complaints Handling Code.
5. Provide specific dates for scheduled work for the outstanding issues.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its procedure for monitoring reported issues. It should consider ensuring all reported issues are assigned to someone to monitor, so that if a repair is not carried out, or access is not obtained, the job is immediately rearranged.
The landlord should provide training or issue a reminder to staff, so that compensation offers are appropriately framed going forwards.