Haringey London Borough Council (202123855)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123855

Haringey Council

13 April 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The repairs service provided by the landlord following a burst pipe in the property.
2. The suitability of the temporary accommodation offered by the landlord.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and recording keeping as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a two bedroom house.

Summary of events

On 11 October 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the repairs service it provided following a burst pipe in the property and the temporary accommodation it arranged. In summary the resident said:
1. On 13 February 2021 a pipe burst in the loft which caused extensive flooding in the property. She confirmed that the landlord attended “after four hours” and made safe.
2. On 18 February 2021, following multiple contacts to the landlord requesting assistance, it arranged temporary accommodation for her and her family in a hotel. She confirmed that the temporary accommodation was booked for seven nights.
3. On 22 February 2021 a surveyor attended the property to assess the damage following the burst pipe. She confirmed that the surveyor advised that the make good works would take “about three weeks”.
4. On learning that the repairs would take longer than one week she requested alternative accommodation as the hotel was not suitable for an extended stay.
5. Despite requesting updates following the property survey no updates were provided by the landlord regarding the make good works or alternative accommodation. She confirmed that after five weeks she eventually learnt that the make good works had not yet been scheduled.
6. The landlord made one suitable offer of alternative accommodation, however later withdrew its offer as a mistake. She confirmed that the landlord apolgoised for its mistake however no further offers were made. She confirmed that she informed the landlord that she would accept a one bedroom property or an out of borough property if it would agree a travel allowance for her son to get to school.
7. The make good works eventually started “three months” after the burst pipe had occurred.
8. During the make good works furniture was damaged by the landlord’s contractors. She confirmed that the furniture was either not covered, as assured by the landlord, or moved into the garden. She confirmed that despite requesting compensation for damage to her furniture and other personal belongings the landlord had not responded. Within her complaint she provided a list of damaged items.
9. The landlord confirmed that she was able to return to the property from 26 July 2021 as the make good works were complete. She confirmed that on returning to the property she smelt gas. She confirmed that a gas engineer attended and identified a leak on the cooker due to incorrect installation. She confirmed that the gas engineer also noted that the pipes on the new boiler were cracked. She confirmed that the temporary accommodation (in the hotel) was extended by the landlord while the issues were resolved.
10. On 4 August 2021 she returned to the property. She confirmed that not all make good works had been completed or completed to a satisfactory standard. She confirmed this included “floorboards, front room redecoration, light fittings, extractor fan [and] front door changed”.
11. The situation had caused “emotional distress, depression and anxiety”. She confirmed that her family’s life had been significantly disrupted as a result of the situation.
12. While she was in temporary accommodation she continued to pay rent, council tax and other utility bills. She said that the landlord should reimburse these costs, in addition to laundrette costs.
13. She had not received the full food allowance which she was entitled to covering the duration of her stay in the temporary accommodation.
14. The landlord should arrange for a hedge on the property’s boundary to be cut as it had overgrown while she was in temporary accommodation.
On 25 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord opened its response by apologising for the “inconvenience caused as a result of the burst tank in the loft”. In summary the landlord said:
1. Following the surveyor visit on 22 February 2021 a work order was raised which included “works for the rear elevation, separate toilet room, kitchen, living room, hallway, roof space, bathroom and bedroom two”.
2. It accepted that the make good works took longer than anticipated and the resident was in temporary accommodation until 4 August 2021.
3. A surveyor had attended the property on 19 October 2021 and raised repairs for “electrical fans and other items”. It confirmed that an appointment was scheduled for 19 November 2021.
4. It would investigate who was responsible for the hedge and get back to the resident.
5. Temporary accommodation was arranged in circumstances where repairs could not be completed with a tenant in situ. It confirmed that due to availability hotels were sometimes the “only option… especially where it [was] for a short term period”.
6. Temporary accommodation was available until the property was made safe following the burst pipe.
7. Following internal discussions it had agreed that the resident should receive “a discretionary disturbance allowance payment”. It confirmed that the resident would be contacted about this separately.
8. It had identified that the resident had only received three out of the nine food allowance payments she was entitled to. It confirmed that it was sorry for this oversight and that she would be contacted about this separately.
9. It would apply a credit on the resident’s account for rent paid between 18 February 2021 to 4 August 2021. It confirmed that the resident should contact her water provider for a refund as this was separate to rent. It confirmed that this also applied to her internet provider. It confirmed that it had referred the resident’s request for a council tax refund to “the council tax team”.
10. It understood that the resident’s claim for damage to her furniture and personal items had been denied by its insurance team. It confirmed that the resident should seek independent legal advice if she was unhappy with its decision.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was “upholding” the complaint and it would like to “apologise for the inconvenience caused”.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that an appointment was scheduled for 16 November 2021 to “replace two extractors fans, install heat alarm to kitchen, reinstate dining room light, service smoke alarms and investigate supply issue to the boiler”. The landlord set out that it was still waiting for a response in respect of a council tax refund and it had requested that the relevant team contact the resident directly regarding the disturbance payment and food allowance.
On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident set out that she was concerned that the stage one response had not addressed that she had been allowed to return to a “unsafe” property in July 2021 due to a gas leak and unconnected smoke alarms. The resident also advised that she was disappointed that the appointment for the electrician to attend was not sooner, as the boiler was plugged in via an extension lead which was a trip hazard.
On 27 November 2021 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary she said:
1. The landlord had not provided an update in respect of:
  1. The promised rent refund.
  2. The possibility of a council tax refund.
  3. Cutting of the overgrown hedge.
  4. Redecoration of the living room.
2. The landlord’s stage one response did not address that she had been allowed to return to an unsafe property in July 2021. She confirmed the property was unsafe due to a gas leak, cracked pipes on boiler and smoke alarms wired incorrectly.
3. The boiler still did not work correctly despite multiple appointments. She confirmed that the boiler was currently permanently plugged in as a solution which was unsatisfactory. The resident confirmed that she would make a “separate complaint about this in case it [could not] be addressed here”.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord acknowledge the escalation request confirming that a response would be provided by 6 January 2022.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. The landlord opened its response by apologising that its response was delayed. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident would raise a separate complaint about repairs to the boiler since her return to the property.
2. It would not comment on damage to the resident’s furniture or personal belongings as she was seeking advice from her insurance provider.
3. It confirmed that the resident’s rent account had been adjusted to reflect the time she was in temporary accommodation.
4. The local authority no longer offered any discounts on vacant properties.
5. Prior to the resident’s return to the property in July 2021 its Senior Building Surveyor inspected the property with the resident for “works carried out to repair the leak”. It confirmed that it was “not standard practice” to carry out gas safety checks when no gas work had taken place. It confirmed that as no gas works were requested no gas test was undertaken.
6. When the resident returned to the property in July 2021 she reported a gas leak. It confirmed that “jobs had been booked in since” and it therefore “trusted the boiler issue [was] now resolved”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it found “fault with the lack of contact about [the resident’s] rent account” which it would raise as a learning point. The landlord explained that the resident may refer the complaint to this Service if she was unhappy with its response.
On 21 March 2022 the resident contacted this Service to request that the Ombudsman consider the complaint. Within her referral the resident set out that she was “still dissatisfied with [the landlord’s] response” stating that all aspects of her complaint had not been addressed or resolved. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord’s response following the burst pipe was unacceptable, including poor communication and delays.
2. It was unsatisfactory that she was required to live with her family in a hotel for five and a half months “with just beds, a bathroom and a kettle”. She confirmed that her children were aged two and 13 at the time.
3. It was unacceptable that the landlord withdrew its only offer of alternative accommodation which met her needs.
4. It was unacceptable that she returned to the property in July 2021 when the property was not safe due to a gas leak and cracked pipes on the boiler.
5. The smoke alarm which was refitted on 16 February 2021 was not wired correctly.
6. The boiler did not work properly on returning to the property in August 2021.
7. Her request for the landlord to cut the hedge was still outstanding.
8. The landlord had recently contacted her to request rent payments for the period she was in temporary accommodation.
9. It was unfair that her insurance claim for furniture and damage to personal items had been refused.
10. The landlord had not paid her the discretionary disturbance allowance.

Assessment and findings

The repairs service provided by the landlord following a burst pipe in the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, the property. A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. On notification of the burst pipe and the consequent damage to the structure of the property by the resident the landlord was obliged to investigate and to make good any issues identified and which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property to demonstrate its response to the burst pipe and make good works.
This Service notes the following while the complaint was live:
1. On 13 February 2021 the resident reported a burst pipe with the landlord attending as an emergency appointment to make safe.
2. On 16 February 2021 the landlord raised a work order to “reinstate lighting and power following water penetration [and] replace/ renew smoke detectors”. The work order was closed on 17 February 2021.
3. On 18 February 2021 the landlord raised a request for surveyor “to inspect property following burst tank”.
4. On 22 February 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the report following the survey on 22 February 2022 documenting the findings and works needed to make good the property. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with any repair records from 22 February 2021 detailing the works which were completed while the resident was in temporary accommodation. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to demonstrate how it meets its tenancy obligations.
The evidence shows that the resident returned to the property on 28 July 2021 as the landlord confirmed that the make good works following the burst pipe were complete. The Ombudsman notes that the make good works therefore took a period of approximately five months. While we do not have information regarding the extent of the damage caused by the burst pipe and the nature of the works needed to make good, due to the unavailability of records, the Ombudsman finds this to be a significant length of time. The landlord accepted within its stage one response that the make good works took longer than anticipated and therefore offered an apology. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, alone this does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not recognise that the repairs service it provided was unnecessarily protracted and therefore impacted adversely on the resident including stress and inconvenience.
During the period from February 2021 to July 2021 the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the resident was provided with a schedule of works or regular updates from the landlord regarding the repairs needed to make good the property. This is unsatisfactory. This would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep her informed. In not doing so the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress, in addition to feeling that her situation was not being taken seriously.
Where significant works are completed in a property the Ombudsman would expect that a landlord completes a post inspection in order to satisfy itself that the work has been completed to a safe and satisfactory standard. While the landlord reports, within internal emails dated January 2022, that it did post inspect the property with the resident, no record of the inspection has been provided. This is unsatisfactory. As a result the Ombudsman cannot disregard the resident’s account that all make good works were not completed or had been completed to a unsatisfactory standard. This Service notes that, following the landlord’s stage one response, it raised additional repairs which supports the resident’s account regarding incomplete works.
The evidence shows that on 28 July 2021 on returning to the property the resident contacted the landlord to report gas. The records confirm that a gas engineer attended the same day to make safe, and there was a follow up appointment on 30 July 2021 to complete the repair on receipt of parts. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of gas was appropriate as it attended promptly to make safe and then completed the repair within 48 hours.
The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that following the make good works in respect of the burst pipe it did not complete a gas safety check as no gas work had taken place. However the landlord’s internal record dated 20 December 2021 documented that the contractor reconnected the gas cooker as a gesture of goodwill during the make good works “which should not have been done”. The Ombudsman is concerned that:
1. It has been identified that gas works were completed during the make good works without following proper procedure.
2. The landlord provided incorrect information within its stage two response regarding any gas works in the property.
Despite the landlord committing to investigating the resident’s concerns regarding the overgrown hedge as part of its stage one response, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided the resident with an outcome. This is unsatisfactory as it was an action that it committed to undertaking in order to address the resident’s complaint.

The suitability of the temporary accommodation offered by the landlord

The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records in relation to the resident’s temporary accommodation. This Service notes the following:
1. The resident and her family moved into temporary accommodation, the hotel, on 18 February 2021. The booking was initially for a period of one week however this was extended following the survey on 22 February 2021.
2. In early March 2021, following a Housing Decision Panel, the resident was approved for alternative temporary accommodation.
3. On 12 March 2021 the landlord provided details of two properties which were available. The resident declined the properties due to the distance from her son’s school and no funding for transport to and from the properties.
4. On 27 May 2021 the landlord provided details of a property which was available, however the property was later withdrawn as it was offered in error.
5. The resident’s temporary accommodation was ended on 4 August 2021.
The resident was in temporary accommodation for a period of approximately five months. As the landlord identified that the property was not habitable following the burst pipe and the make good works could not be undertaken with the resident in situ, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident and her family.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not unreasonable that the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation on 18 February 2021 was a hotel. This is because the accommodation was needed on short notice. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s policy on decants states that temporary accommodation may be in a hotel “where necessary”.
It was appropriate that the landlord, on learning that the make good works following the leak were extensive and would not be completed immediately, arranged for the resident’s case to be considered by the Housing Decision Panel. Approval for alternative accommodation was given in early March 2021 which the Ombudsman considers a reasonable timeframe following the inspection on 22 February 2021.
Following approval by the Housing Decision Panel the landlord put forward two properties for the resident to consider as alternative temporary accommodation on 12 March 2021. While the resident was entitled to refuse the accommodation, the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord will only have had a limited number of vacant properties available to it at that time (taking into account its commitments to its other tenants also).
The Ombudsman considers that it was unfortunate that the landlord made an error in offering a property in May 2021. The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports within her complaint that the landlord apologised for its error. This was appropriate and amounts to reasonable redress.
Looking at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation independently from its handling of the make good works, the Ombudsman is satisfied that its response was reasonable. This is because the landlord did seek to find more suitable accommodation on learning that temporary accommodation would be needed for an extended period of time.
In response to the resident’s request for a council tax refund the landlord confirmed that she was not entitled to a refund for the period she was in temporary accommodation as the local authority no longer offered any discounts on vacant properties. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer a decision on council tax to the local authority’s appropriate team, as it does not have jurisdiction over council tax. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have considered whether a good will gesture was appropriate in recognition that she had to pay council tax for a property that she could not use, especially as it recognised that the make good works took longer than they should have.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact her utility providers for refunds for services not used while she was in temporary accommodation. This is because the resident, despite not residing in the property during the make good works, remained responsible for paying these services with the providers whom the landlord had no relationship with. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have considered whether a good will gesture was appropriate in recognition that she had to pay for utilities not used for an extended period of time due to its handling of the make good works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe

In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe the landlord confirmed that her request had been appropriately responded to by its insurance team.
While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of the resident’s insurance claim which was denied, as we cannot determine liability, this Service will consider whether the landlord’s position was reasonable.
As the evidence shows that the landlord promptly attended the property to make safe the burst pipe following reporting and it disputed that its action or inaction during the make good works had resulted in damage to her personal belongings, the landlord’s position was reasonable. This is because where a landlord disputes fault the insurer will then seek to establish liability.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint chronology demonstrates that the landlord promptly provided the resident with its stage one response on 25 October 2021 following her written complaint on 11 October 2021.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide its stage two, final response, within 25 working days. The resident requested a stage two response on 27 November 2021 which was provided by the landlord on 31 January 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s service standard. While the landlord’s stage two response was provided outside of its service standard it does not amount to a service failure. This is because the response was not so significantly delayed to have adversely impacted on the resident and further the landlord apologised for its omission to recognise the uncertainty and distress she would have experienced as a result.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the resident did not receive all food allowances she was entitled to. The landlord apolgoised and confirmed that it would be in touch to arrange payment. From the evidence provided the Ombudsman has not been able to confirm if all payments were made to the resident or not. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment the landlord made to put matters right.
In considering the complaint the landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident a discretionary disturbance allowance (£1000). This was in line with the landlord’s decant policy which sets out that “a disturbance payment will be paid to tenants to cover the reasonable costs associated with moving into temporary accommodation…” While the landlord should have considered the disturbance payment at an earlier time as part of the decant process, it does not amount to a service failure as it has identified that the payment was due and therefore put it right by making the offer. However there is service failure as the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that the payment was made to the resident. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment that the landlord made to put matters right.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out that a tenant is responsible for paying rent for the “temporary accommodation property” and not their permanent property. The policy is not clear what happens when the temporary accommodation is a hotel. In responding to the complaint the landlord confirmed that it would apply a credit on the resident’s account for rent paid while she was in temporary accommodation, the hotel. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as the temporary accommodation provided, the hotel, was clearly not suitable to meet her needs and that of her family for the duration of the decant; including availability of amenities. The statement detailing the resident’s rent account shows that in December 2021 credit was applied to the resident’s account covering a period of 27 weeks. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has confirmed in recent records that the credit resulted in a Housing Benefit overpayment.
While the landlord has taken some steps to reimburse the resident for out of pocket expenses (food) as well as offering a disturbance allowance and rent refund, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s complaint investigation did not consider whether it had done enough to put matters right. In considering the complaint it would have been best practice for the landlord to have considered whether compensation was due to the resident for distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the works taking longer than they should and therefore she was left living in a hotel with limited facilities.
While the complaint was live the resident expressed on several occasions the impact the situation had on her and her family’s lives, including emotional distress, depression and anxiety. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to complaints.
As part of her escalation request the resident confirmed that she would raise her concerns about the boiler not working correctly despite multiple appointments as a separate complaint. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not respond to these issues as part of this complaint procedure, including as it would allow the resident access to both stages of its complaint procedure on the issue.

The landlord’s record keeping

It is unsatisfactory that the landlord has not kept a record of the survey undertaken on 22 February 2021 detailing the extent of the damage caused by the burst pipe and the nature of the works needed to make good, in addition to repair records documenting the make good works. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of the repairs service it provided following a burst pipe in the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of the suitability of the temporary accommodation it offered.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
5. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The repairs service provided by the landlord following a burst pipe in the property

The repairs service provided by the landlord was unsatisfactory because:
1. The time taken to make good the property following the burst pipe was unnecessarily protracted.
2. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a schedule of works or regular updates regarding the repairs needed to make good the property.
3. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it completed a post inspection following the repairs and make good works to address the burst pipe and therefore that the works were all completed or completed to a satisfactory standard.
4. Gas works were completed during the make good works without following proper procedure and the landlord failed to recognise this within its complaint responses.
5. The landlord failed to provide the resident with an outcome regarding the overgrown hedge.
While the landlord apologised that the repairs to address the burst pipe had taken longer than anticipated, the apology alone does not amount to reasonable redress as it does not reflect the impact on the resident including distress, uncertainty and inconvenience.

The suitability of the temporary accommodation offered by the landlord

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation was reasonable as:
1. It did seek to find more suitable accommodation on learning that temporary accommodation would be needed for an extended period of time.
2. It refunded the rent paid by the resident for the period she was in temporary accommodation – the hotel.
However it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to consider whether a good will gesture was appropriate in recognition that due to the make good works taking longer than they should that the resident had to pay council tax for a property that she could not use in addition to utilities that she could not access.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe

As the evidence shows that the landlord promptly attended the property to make safe the burst pipe following reporting and it disputed that its action or inaction during the make good works had resulted in damage to the resident’s personal belongings it was reasonable for it to refer her to its insurers for damage to her personal belongings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory as it failed:
1. To consider whether compensation was due to the resident for distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the works taking longer than they should and therefore she was left living in a hotel with limited facilities.
2. To respond to, or demonstrate that it had considered, her reports concerning the impact the situation was having on her and her family which included emotional distress, depression and anxiety.
It was unsatisfactory that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it paid the resident the food allowances she was entitled to and the discretionary allowance it awarded, and which it confirmed would be paid in responding to the complaint.

The landlord’s recording keeping

The landlord’s record keeping was unsatisfactory as it has failed to demonstrate that it kept appropriate records in relation to the repairs service it provided in respect of the burst pipe in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repairs service it provided.
The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £1500 for the repairs service it provided the resident and the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result. (This is in addition to the disturbance allowance awarded by the landlord).
2. £100 in recognition that the resident was required to pay council tax and utilities for a property she was unable use for an extended period of time due to service failure by the landlord.
3. £100 in recognition that the landlord failed to demonstrate that the resident received the full food allowance she was entitled to, in addition to the disturbance allowance it offered, and therefore the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result.
4. £100 for complaint handling.
The landlord should attend to the overgrown hedge within the property’s boundary within four weeks of the date of this determination. Following the landlord’s maintenance of the hedge responsibility for its maintenance should be carried out in accordance with the terms of the property’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord should review its records to ensure that all food allowances that the resident was entitled to have been paid. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to confirm the outcome of the exercise and provide a date for any monies owed to be paid.
The landlord should review its records to ensure that the discretionary allowance agreed has been paid to the resident. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of this determination to confirm the outcome of the exercise and provide a date for the payment to be made if it is found that it is still outstanding.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to see whether her concerns regarding the boiler have been resolved, as mentioned within her stage two escalation request. If the resident remains concerns regarding the boiler the landlord should take steps to investigate and put things right.
The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to provide clarification regarding the housing benefit overpayment following reimbursement of rent for the period she was in temporary accommodation so that she understands how this may impact upon her.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that it responds to complaints in line with best practice.
The landlord should review its record keeping procedure for repairs to ensure that it is able to keep appropriate records documenting how it is meeting its repair obligations.