Great Places Housing Association (202128398)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202128398
Great Places Housing Association
30 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports about her boundary wall.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s fence.
- The landlord’s response to repair issues reported by the resident.
- The landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has an assured tenancy agreement of a 3-bedroom detached house owned by the landlord. She lives with her partner who has health issues.
- On 8 December 2021, the resident spoke with the landlord raising concerns about her neighbour’s fence, damage to her roof and the potential presence of vermin in her loft. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 January 2022 about the following:
- Her landlord’s communication, particularly with the neighbourhood services manager (NSM).
- Issues with the landlord’s approach to planning permission, including her neighbour’s fence being too high. She also said her boundary wall was “degrading.”
- Delays in completing repairs at her property, including her roof, loft, and bedroom window.
- The resident reissued her complaint to the landlord again on 31 January 2022 as it told her it had not received it. On 16 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response informing the resident of the following:
- Her neighbour’s fence was at an acceptable height, and it had flattened nails in the fence.
- The retaining wall was the responsibility of the council and it had raised this with them on 16 August 2021. The landlord said on 21 June 2021 it had inspected the wall and found it to be safe.
- It had scheduled repairs to her roof and confirmed it had inspected the property on 14 January 2022, during which it identified a requirement to replace a bedroom window.
- The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process on 2 March 2022. Her escalation raised the following points:
- The repair to her bedroom window and loft hatch was scheduled for 21 February 2022 but no one turned up or contacted her to cancel the appointment.
- She could no longer trust the communication from her NSM as it was confusing and contradictory. She said the NSM spoke with her neighbour about the issue with her fence but not her and ignored her previous messages.
- Her NSM had last contacted the council about the boundary wall on 25 August 2021, but the NSM said on 23 September 2021 they had been unable to reach the council. The resident said it was not her responsibility to coordinate with the council.
- The landlord rejected her complaint escalation request, stating her partner had said he was happy to close the complaint if all repair issues were resolved. It instead completed a stage one review on 11 April 2022 in which it said the council had visited her property on 5 April 2022 regarding the boundary wall and the NSM would speak with her about her concerns with the fence.
- On 6 May 2022, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response of 11 April 2022. She said her partner had not told the landlord he was happy to close the complaint and it had not considered all her issues in its response to her.
- As the resident did not receive a further response, on 19 May 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident by 7 June 2022. The landlord completed a further stage one complaint review on 7 June 2022 informing the resident of the following:
- It apologised for the delays in completed repairs advising they were now completed or in progress and offered £50 compensation for delays in completing repairs. It said it had implemented a new system to ensure residents did not need to chase ongoing repairs.
- It said it could find no evidence it had ignored the resident and had measured the fence and it was at an acceptable height. It said it would arrange a meeting between the resident and a new NSM to discuss her issues who would also assist her in future.
- It had previously informed her the boundary wall was structurally safe, but it was the responsibility of the council and it had raised the residents’ concerns about it with them.
- It had addressed all parts of her complaint and followed its policies and procedures in responding to her concerns, so could not escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
- On 15 June 2022, an operative for the landlord was due to attend to complete repairs to the roof. The resident reported during a live chat with the landlord on the same day this did not take place and scaffolding had never been erected. The landlord stated its system showed the repair as complete with an order made to remove the accompanying scaffolding.
- In raising her complaint to this Service on 2 August 2023 the resident stated repairs to her property were still outstanding. She also stated it was unfair the landlord did not escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
- In an email sent to this Service on 12 November 2023 the resident confirmed the following:
- Neither the landlord nor council have attended at her property regarding the boundary wall. She provided photographic evidence of the damage to the wall.
- Her neighbour’s fence is still standing and has screws sticking out on her side. She provided photographic evidence of this. She said her landlord has not provided its policy on the height of fences.
- Her bedroom window and the loft hatch have both been fixed. However, the issue with the leak in her roof remains and she has provided photographic evidence of water on the roof membrane within her loft.
- The landlord had visited the property after further reports of rats and placed rat bait in the attic and determined she needed mesh vent covers installing. She said since then she has only noticed rats on her porch roof and not inside the property.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her boundary wall.
- The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 outlines a landlord’s responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of a property. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which assess potential risks to health and safety in residential properties.
- The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states it will prioritise any repair issue, aim to complete repairs in one visit, notify residents of booked repair appointments and confirm resident’s satisfaction once any repair is complete. It also confirms that boundary walls are the responsibility of the landlord.
- After receiving concerns from the resident on 17 June 2021 the landlord took appropriate steps in investigating the resident’s boundary wall on 18 and 21 June 2021, finding land adjacent to her property had been developed by the council into a health centre and adjoining car park. It found using Land Registry data that the boundary wall resided in the council owned land and was the council’s responsibility. It was reasonable in finding the wall had cracks but was structurally sound and determining as the adjacent landowner it should raise this with the council in the event of failure on its land. In its role as a responsible landlord it is expected from this point it would liaise with the council about their responsibility and ensure that it took steps to monitor the issue and communicate effectively with the resident so as to provide updates and reassurance. The landlord failed to take suitable steps to ensure the resident was contacted by the council and there is no evidence it informed the resident about its findings about the integrity of the wall. This caused unnecessary anxiety and frustration to the resident over the issue.
- There is some dispute over what further action was taken by the landlord. It states it contacted the council on 25 August 2021 who stated they would contact the resident. However, the resident states the NSM told her on 23 September 2021 they had been unable to contact the council. The resident raised her complaint in part about the boundary wall on 11 January 2022, stating no further action had taken place. As previously established the landlord should have liaised with the council about the boundary wall and continued to monitor the wall. There is no evidence it had further contact with the council from 25 August 2021 or that it monitored the wall. This demonstrated a failure to follow through on its liaison/monitoring responsibility as described above.
- On 2 March 2022, the resident stated a professional inspection of the wall had not taken place and on 28 March 2022 she said the landlord had never informed her if the boundary wall was safe. The landlord had in fact informed her the wall was structurally sound in its stage one complaint response of 16 February 2022. However, this was based on its investigation in June 2022. It was appropriate for its repairs manager to attend the property on 5 April 2022 to complete a further inspection of the wall. However, it would have been reasonable to arrange this sooner given the resident’s continued reports and there being no evidence of further monitoring activity regarding deterioration of the wall since it last inspected it in June 2021.
- The landlord spoke with the council on 5 April 2022 who confirmed they were arranging a surveyor to attend the property. Other than this contact, there is no further evidence of the landlord having liaised with the council on this issue since its confirmation that it had done so on 25 August 2021. This was unreasonable as it had previously established it was obligated to liaise with the council and monitor the boundary wall. Moreover, the importance in doing this was heightened as in its stage one review of 11 April 2022 it was aware the wall was deteriorating due to cars in the adjacent car park striking the wall and the concern this was causing to the resident.
- The landlord was reasonable in confirming it would chase this with the council the following day as it was aware it had promised this to the resident before. The council attended the property on 5 April 2022 and confirmed it would contact the landlord about securing the wall.
- The landlord confirmed on 7 June 2022 it had taken all action it could with the wall and further action needed to be taken by the council as the boundary wall was on their land. It stated it had expressed urgency to the council in assessing this. It failed to acknowledge its delay in liaising with the council or monitoring the wall which was unreasonable as it caused further frustration to the resident.
- In summary the landlord failed to follow through on action it had previously identified in relation to liaising with the council and monitoring the issue to a timely conclusion. There is no evidence of any liaison between it and the council for extended periods, meaning the issue became protracted. As such the resident experienced further detriment, including her escalating fears that further deterioration of the wall would occur. However, while this failure to liaise and monitor is of concern, there is no evidence to conclude that the landlord’s initial assessment that the wall was safe and structurally sound was inaccurate. The delay in raising the matter with the council prolonged the risk for the resident as the landlord was aware the wall was deteriorating but had not investigated itself the extent of this. The steps it did take once it started to act, in further investigating the wall itself and chasing the council on 5 April 2022 were reasonable actions to take.
- This Service finds there was service failure with respect of the resident’s report about her boundary wall. There were failures by the landlord in its communication with the council and in its investigating the wall itself and it failed to acknowledge these issues in its complaint response. This caused distress, inconvenience, and loss of confidence to the resident. To remedy the landlord’s failures the landlord has been ordered to confirm in writing to the resident that it will continue to liaise with the council on this matter and that it will also continue to monitor the issue on a suitable periodic basis. Compensation of £100 has also been ordered for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s fence.
- The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 determines fences as permitted development which do not require planning permission if they meet specific height limits. In this respect, the maximum height for any fence not next to a highway is 2 metres, equivalent to 6.6 feet.
- The resident raised her concerns with the landlord on 23 September 2021 that her neighbour was installing a fence. The neighbourhood services manager was unable to attend due to illness, which was understandable given the COVID-19 pandemic. However no further contact was made following this until 8 December 2021 when the resident spoke with the NSM by telephone. This was an unreasonable amount of time and outside of the first stage of the landlord’s complaint’s policy, Nip it in the Bud (NIP) where it states it aims to resolve informal complaints within 48 hours.
- The resident spoke with the NSM by telephone on 8 December 2021 and the resident provided photos of her neighbour’s fence during the call. The landlord confirmed in this call it had flattened nails in the fence and it had been measured several times and was below 6.6 feet. It did not confirm when it had done this and there is no evidence of when it completed these things in its records. The resident stated in her complaint the NSM had ignored the photos she had sent. In its response of 16 February 2022, the landlord confirmed it had measured the fence and it was of an acceptable height and it also addressed the resident’s concerns that photos she had sent to the landlord had been ignored. It explained the NSM had received the photos whilst on the phone to her on 8 December 2021 and they had discussed them as part of their conversation.
- The NSM arranged to attend the property with the resident on 3 February 2022 but did not do so until 21 February 2022 and when they did, they only spoke with the neighbour. It was evident at this point the resident was unhappy about several issues and was awaiting a repair to her loft hatch and bedroom window on the same day. It was therefore unreasonable for the LL not to take the opportunity to discuss these issues with her on 3 and 21 February 2022. It only arranged a further meeting between the NSM and resident for 8 April 2022 as part of its stage one complaint review of 11 April 2022. The further delay prolonged the inconvenience and lack of confidence in the landlord for the resident.
- The landlord failed to address in its complaint response or reviews the concerns raised by the resident about the NSM. Its stage one review of 11 April and 7 June 2022 referred to a meeting between the resident and NSM on 8 April 2022 in which it hoped this went ahead and alleviated any concerns. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to determine with the NSM that the meeting had taken place and what was discussed as part of its complaint reviews.
- Although the landlord stated on 16 February 2022 that it had flattened the nails in her fence, the resident told it on 31 March 2022 there were still nails sticking into her side of the fence. There was no evidence the landlord investigated this report from the resident, which was unreasonable as it did not prioritise the health and safety at the property. The resident has confirmed with photographic evidence this is still an issue, supporting that the landlord has taken no further action.
- The landlord arranged for the fence to be measured again following the resident’s complaint escalation request of 2 March 2022. This Service has seen evidence the fence was measured on 5 April 2022 but an internal landlord email on the same day statedthe fence was over height. This contradicted the previous assertions from the landlord in its stage one complaint response that the fence had been measured and was under height. This Service can find no further evidence the landlord clarified the height internally or remeasured the fence following 5 April 2022. It later stated to the resident on 8 June 2022 the fence was of an acceptable height despite the contradictory reported measurement of 5 April 2022. It was unreasonable in not confirming the measurement and continuing to state the fence was under height when it had evidence to the contrary.
- In summary the landlord failed to resolve the issue informally when it was first reported by the resident. This was beyond the 48 hours timescale in the NIP stage of its Complaints Policy. It acted appropriately in explaining in its stage one complaint response the fence was at an acceptable height and in remeasuring the fence on 5 April 2022. However, there is ambiguity over the height of the fence as when the landlord remeasured it, it was reported as over height. The landlord took no further action because of this and only referred to a meeting between the NSM and resident which it did not provide detail of. It also failed to act on the further report of nails sticking out of her fence, raising concerns from a health and safety perspective.
- It is the view of this Service there has been service failure regarding the resident’s reports about the neighbour’s fence. While this issue does not present as one that resulted in a significant detriment to the resident, it is of concern that the landlord’s response did not acknowledge information it had identified that might have altered its approach. By consequence, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated a fair process in how it has handled this aspect of the complaint. To remedy this, an order to measure the height of the fence in the presence of the resident has been ordered, with a clear action plan to then be provided if this results in a measurement in excess of what is considered acceptable. In addition, a compensation order has been detailed below to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s response to repair issues reported by the resident.
- The resident’s occupancy agreement states the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including the roof, window frames, catches and glass, ceilings, plasterwork, and outside walls. The resident must report any repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility and give reasonable notice of 24 hours, except for in an emergency.
- The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states its repair standards mean it will do the following:
- Confirm an appointment as soon as possible and aims to complete the repair in one visit.
- It will prioritise the urgency of repairs, it will communicate with residents when it is on the way to complete a repair and confirm satisfaction with the repair once complete.
- On 5 November 2020, a contractor replaced the glass in the resident’s bedroom window and then on 24 June 2021 a contractor working for the landlord advised the resident her bedroom window needed to be replaced. The resident raised this with the landlord on 23 September 2021 and it told her it would contact her about this, but there is no evidence it did so. She raised this again on 14 January 2022 and the landlord attended on the same day and confirmed a replacement window was required. The delay in arranging this was unreasonable and not in accordance with the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy in confirming an appointment as soon as possible.
- The resident reported damage to her roof and loft hatch on 8 December 2021 and this Service can find no evidence the landlord responded to this. The resident chased the repair to her roof on 11 January 2022 and the landlord directed her to make a complaint. The landlord’s response was inappropriate as it directed the resident to its complaints process rather than clarifying how the issue would progress through its repairs.
- On 8 December 2021, the resident raised with the NSM the presence of rats in her loft, and it told her someone would be back in touch with her. She raised the issue again on 2 and 28 March 2022 but there was no further response from the landlord or evidence of an investigation at the property on this matter. In its response of 11 April 2022, it said it had replaced vents at the property on 6 April 2022 but there was no clear explanation if this was to manage the potential rat infestation. None of the landlord’s complaint responses referred specifically to investigating or managing the rat infestation at the property causing further anxiety and stress to an issue that is still present.
- The Ombudsman expects issues raised as part of the complaints process to be addressed and it is of concern that this has not happened here. As the resident has reported to this Service that the issue remains, an order has been included below for the landlord to inspect the property within 4 weeks and to then confirm its action plan for resolving any identified pest infestation issues should this inspection identify a requirement to do so.
- On 1 and 20 February 2022 the landlord told the resident it would be attending the property on 21 February 2022 to complete a repair to the bedroom window, roof, and loft hatch. There is no evidence the landlord attended to complete these repairs, nor did it inform her it would not be attending on the agreed date. As the landlord failed to prioritise the repair and communicate with the resident about the repairs appointment it failed to adhere to its Reasonable Repairs Policy. This was unreasonable and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The resident raised the outstanding repair issues in her complaint escalation request of 2 March 2022 and her further contact on 28 and 31 March 2022. However, no further action from the landlord took place. Its stage one review of 11 April 2022 stated it had raised the repairs to her bedroom window and roof again.
- This Service can also find no evidence the landlord investigated the missed appointment. Its response of 2 March 2022 failed to acknowledge the missed appointment or apologise to the resident. In doing so it failed to show it had taken the issue seriously, resulting in a loss of confidence to the resident.
- On 25 April 2022, the landlord created an order to erect scaffolding and complete a repair to the roof. However, no further action took place, and the landlord raised the same order again on 26 May 2022. The landlord acted unreasonably in failing to act on its own work order of 25 April 2022 and failing to communicate with the resident about this until 7 June 2022. It was not clear from the landlord’s stage one complaint review of 7 June 2022 to what extent it was acknowledging failure or the date it believed this took place. In failing to prioritise the repair and causing delay it failed to meet its Responsive Repairs Policy which caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. An apology should have been provided by the landlord for the delays but there is no evidence of this between 8 December 2021 and 6 June 2022.
- Moreover, the landlord’s response of 7 June 2022 referred to £50 compensation for delays it had previously offered to the resident. However, this Service can find no evidence of the landlord previously offering this to the resident. Furthermore, although the £50 offered meets the landlord’s Compensation Policy of up to £50 for delays in completing repairs, it does not provide an appropriate level of compensation that would accord with the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies. As such it does not consider the time and trouble and the stress, frustration and uncertainty suffered by the resident because of the delays to all the repairs by the landlord.
- It was reasonable for the landlord to put into place a new housing management system to alleviate issues regarding repairs and reduce the requirement for residents to chase them. This showed the landlord had listened to her issues and made effective remedies to address them in the long term in accordance with Dispute Resolution Principles.
- The resident raised throughout her complaints on 11 January and 2 March 2022 with the landlord a strained relationship with her NSM. Although the landlord acted appropriately on 7 June 2022 in arranging for a new NSM to work with the resident it ought to have considered this sooner to implement a better relationship between it and the resident. It also failed to acknowledge or investigate the resident’s concerns with the NSM in its responses of 16 February and 11 April 2022, which left the resident feeling she was not being taken seriously.
- There is serious concern that the repair to the roof on 15 June 2022 did not take place and the landlord’s system was recorded as it being completed with an order to remove scaffolding that had in fact not been erected. This was a failure to follow through with the agreement it made in its stage two complaint response where it advised the relevant repairs would be completed shortly and its position that its new housing management system would mitigate against such repair issues. This failure further delayed the repair for the resident causing her further distress and inconvenience. Had it not been for the intervention of the resident in reporting the non-attendance promptly the error could have gone unnoticed for much longer.
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The incorrect reporting of the completed repairs of 15 June 2022 highlights the landlord has an issue with record keeping. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
- In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Responsive Repairs Policy for all the repairs required at the resident’s property. It was delayed in assessing the issue to the window between 23 September 2021 and 14 January 2022. It did not complete the required repair to the roof between its first complaint response on 16 February 2022 and its last on 7 June 2022. It is concerning that the resident has confirmed the issue with her roof is still present. There is no evidence the landlord has investigated or addressed the reported rat infestation at the resident’s property.
- The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in repair the resident’s structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. By way of remedy, the landlord has been ordered to complete the repair to the resident’s roof and to address the reported presence of rats. Furthermore, compensation of £600 has been awarded as the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to see these through or fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property.
The landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy states it will complete stage one complaint responses within 10 working days and stage two complaint response within 20 working days. Its policy does not establish its timescale for completion of stage one complaint reviews.
- This Service has seen evidence the resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 11 January 2022, despite the landlord stating it had not received it on this date. The stage one complaint response provided by the landlord on 16 February 2022 took 27 working days, which is outside of the 10-working day timescale in its Customer Feedback Policy.
- The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 2 March 2022, but this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 31 March 2022. This was unreasonable in that she was inconvenienced in having to call to chase the acknowledgement.
- Once the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request of 2 March 2022 it caused further delay whilst determining whether it could complete the escalation.
- The delay from the landlord in determining whether it could escalate the resident’s complaints meant both of its stage one reviews completed by the landlord were outside of both its stage one and stage two complaint timescale.
- The resident asked to escalate her stage one complaint on 2 March 2022. The landlord completed its first stage one review on 11 April 2022, equivalent to 29 working days.
- The resident’s further escalation request was made on 6 May 2022 and the landlord provided its further stage one review on 7 June 2022, which was equivalent to 21 working days.
- The above delays were significant in causing uncertainty to the resident as to whether she had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, as she asked to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 May 2022.
- The first stage one review was completed on the basis that the landlord believed the resident’s partner was happy to close the complaint. When it discovered this was untrue the landlord took no further action and was grounds for escalation of the complaint. The landlord chose not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint process but its stage one complaint reviews of 11 April and 7 June 2022 although confusing to the process completed the same function as a stage two response. They addressed the further points raised by the resident and provided escalation rights, which was reasonable.
- In its final stage one review of 7 June 2022 the landlord confirmed it had addressed all elements of the complaint and followed its policies and procedures, so could not escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. This was inappropriate as its final stage one review only provided a more comprehensive response to the complaint. In denying escalation to stage two it was unreasonable in causing uncertainty to the resident over whether the landlord had followed its complaints procedure correctly.
- The landlord’s assertion that it had addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint was also inaccurate. The pest infestation issue was not responded to and the resident has since confirmed that the issue remains a significant concern. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to identify and respond to all issues raised as part of a complaints process as otherwise they will fail to resolve issues and identify wider learning. This also results in a deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship.
- A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy or acknowledge, learn from, or apologise for the unnecessary delay it caused to the resident.
- As such this Service finds there has been service failure in respect to the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect the resident’s inconvenience and distress due to the landlord’s failures, £100 compensation has been awarded.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her boundary wall.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s fence.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to repair issues reported by the resident.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
- Within 4 weeks, to pay the resident a total of £900 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the inappropriate handling of her reports about her boundary wall.
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and inappropriate handling of her reports about her neighbour’s fence.
- £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays inappropriate handling of her reports of repair issues.
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and the unreasonable complaint handling.
- Raise a works order to repair the resident’s roof. The expected timescale for completing the roof repair to be confirmed to the resident at the same time as the works order is raised.
- The landlord to measure the height of the neighbour’s fence in the presence of the resident and to undertake any required safety actions at the same time. Should the fence be of a height that requires further action to be taken, the landlord to confirm its action plan for resolving the issue.
- Investigate the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property within 4 weeks. If this inspection identifies a requirement for further preventative action, the landlord to confirm its action plan for resolving the issue.
- Liaise with the council to ensure that they take any required remedial action regarding the boundary wall and provide an update on this to the resident. The landlord to confirm to the resident that it will inspect the wall at quarterly intervals.
- The landlord to review its repairs and maintenance record keeping processes against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report and to provide this Service with a copy of its findings.
- Within 4 weeks, to pay the resident a total of £900 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
- The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days.