Housing Solutions (202332388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332388

Housing Solutions

22 September 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of noise nuisance.
2. Handling of a window repair.
3. Handling of heating repairs.
4. Response to reports of damp and mould.
5. Handling of repairs to wall and ceiling cracks.
6. Handling of a communal lift repair.
7. Maintenance of bins in the communal area.
8. Processing of a compensation payment.
9. Response to the resident’s request that it relocate an extractor fan.
10. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. His tenancy of the property began in 2014. The property is a one-bedroom flat within a block of flats.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2023 and complained about a range of issues. He provided more information about these issues during a phone call with the landlord on 4 December 2023 and in follow up emails on 6 December and 12 December 2023. He said:
1. Noise nuisance – he had made numerous noise complaints to the landlord about its tenant in a neighbouring flat. The landlord had taken “no action”.
2. Window repair – the seals in his bedroom window required replacing. The landlord was aware of this but had “done nothing” to resolve it.
3. Heating repairs – he had been complaining for over 3 years that the heating in the property was not working properly. The landlord had failed to resolve this. The property was very cold as a result and this was affecting his health.
4. Damp and mould – the landlord had recently cleaned mould from the property but it had returned.
5. Wall and ceiling cracks – the landlord previously said it would repair cracks and provide him with a decorating pack. It had not done so.
6. Communal lift repair – the lift had been broken since late November 2023. He struggled to use the stairs due a respiratory illness. He was unable to order his groceries online as as the delivery drivers would not use the stairs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 18 December 2023. It said:
1. Noise nuisance – it had opened an Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) case the previous year following reports from the resident about his neighbour. However, it closed the case in October 2022 as he had not provided it with evidence it requested. Given the concerns raised in his complaint, its ASB team would review his case and contact him.
2. Window repair – the resident had not reported there was an issue with the bedroom window seal prior to submitting his complaint. The landlord would attend to it within 21 days in line with its repairs policy.
3. Heating repairs:
  1. In April 2023 the resident reported the heating was not working. It asked him at the time to contact its repairs team to arrange an appointment. He did not do so but it should have got back in touch with him to see if the issue had been resolved. It therefore upheld this part of his complaint.
  2. The resident contacted it again in November 2023 to report the heating was not working. Its contractors attended in early December 2023 and found the storage heaters were not working as they should. The contractors would replace the heaters on 20 or 21 December 2023.
4. Damp and mould – its contractor attended the property and carried out mould treatment on 24 November 2023. It had arranged for the contractor to carry out further treatment on 11 December 2023. It upheld this part of the complaint as it “would not have expected the mould to reappear following the initial treatment”.
5. Wall and ceiling cracks – it told the resident in November 2023 it would provide him with a decorating pack so he could fill in hairline cracks and make good the decoration after. It was sorry it had not yet provided this and upheld this part of his complaint. As a “gesture of goodwill” it would arrange for its contractor to fill in the cracks and decorate the affected areas.
6. Communal lift repair – the lift had not been working for 3 weeks as its lift contractor required a specialist part to fix it. The contractor had ordered this part and intended to complete the repair on 21 December 2023.
7. It offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the inconvenience the complaint issues had caused him
The resident asked the landlord on 4 January 2024 to escalate all the complaint issues to stage 2. He also asked it to address 3 additional issues (points g to i below). He said:
1. Noise nuisance – he had reported a number of disturbances from his neighbour to the landlord since it closed the ASB file in October 2022. The landlord had taken “absolutely no action” other than suggesting he should report his concerns to the police.
2. Window repair – the landlord suggested in its stage 1 response he had only reported this repair to it when he complained in December 2024. However, he had reported it “well before” then, so the landlord had not complied with its target response time of 21 days for attending to a repair.
3. Heating repairs – the new heaters had been installed since the landlord’s stage 1 response. However, this was only after he had spent over 3 years complaining that the old heaters did not work. The landlord had not shown him how to programme the new heaters.
4. Damp and mould – he had complained to the landlord for 3 years before it took any action and attended to the mould in his property.
5. Wall and ceiling cracks – the landlord had repaired the cracks since it issued its stage 1 response, but he wanted to carry out the decorative repairs himself. The landlord had offered him £250 previously so he could buy paint, but it had not yet paid him this.
6. Communal lift repair – the lift was not repaired on 21 December 2023 as the landlord suggested it would be its stage 1 response. It meant he had to ask a friend to collect his grocery shopping as delivery drivers would not deliver shopping to his property without a functioning lift.
7. Bins – he had been complaining since 2021 about a strong smell of rubbish coming from the communal bins. He was also concerned about fly-tipping and other residents using the wrong bins. The landlord was refusing to respond to his complaints about this issue and had not resolved it.
8. Compensation payment – the landlord offered him £95 compensation in July 2022 in response to a previous complaint. It had not paid him this yet.
9. Extractor fan – the landlord had installed an extractor fan in the bathroom above the shower. He felt this was an unsafe position and asked the landlord to relocate it.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint on 31 January 2024. It said:
1. Noise nuisance – it had received further reports of ASB from the resident since it closed the ASB case in October 2022. In response it had offered him diary sheets and encouraged him to complete these as they were important evidence should it decide to take formal legal action. Its ASB team were investigating his recent reports and had been in contact with him.
2. Window repair – it was made aware in October 2023, via contact from us, that the resident had reported his window was not closing properly. It repaired this in November 2023. When the resident complained on 4 December 2023, he made a new report that the window seal needed to be replaced. The landlord repaired this on 18 December 2022, which was within 21 days in line with its repairs policy.
3. Heating repairs – it installed the new heaters on 31 December 2023. An operative was scheduled to visit him on 1 February 2024 to show him how to programme them.
4. Damp and mould – it was satisfied it had responded appropriately to his previous reports of damp and mould dating back to 2021. Following the mould wash treatment it had applied in December 2023, the resident had confirmed there was no longer any mould in the property.
5. Wall and ceiling cracks – as the resident wanted to carry out the decorative work himself following its repair of the cracks, it was content to pay him £250 for materials. It had previously offered him this amount so he could buy paint but had not paid it as he did not respond when it asked him how he would like it to be paid.
6. Communal lift repair – its contractor was unable to repair the lift on 21 December 2023 due to difficulty in obtaining the required part. It rang the resident that day to advise him the repair would not be going ahead. Its complaints manager offered to carry groceries up to his flat in the interim if he wanted to book an online delivery. He said this would not be necessary.
7. Bins – it cleaned the bin area on a rota basis. It was experiencing issues with fly-tipping from residents and non-residents. It was “working hard to try and prevent this from happening”. When it received reports that items had been dumped, it aimed to clear them as soon as possible.
8. Compensation payment – it credited the £95 compensation it offered him in July 2022 as part of a previous complaint response, to his rent account on 1 March 2023. It would send him a copy of his rent statement to show this credit had been applied.
9. Extractor fan – it would not relocate the fan. Its repairs team considered it was placed in the best position to extract moisture from the bathroom and its placement was approved by its repairs team.
The resident referred his complaint to us in April 2024. He asked us to investigate all the issues raised in his complaint as well as the landlord’s complaint handling. He explained the landlord had not fully repaired the bedroom window, the ASB from his neighbour remained ongoing, and there was still a “powerful rubbish smell” coming from the bins. He said he did not know how the newly fitted heaters worked and had “no trust” in the landlord to show him. He wanted the landlord to resolve all these outstanding issues.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of noise nuisance

The resident complained that he had made numerous noise nuisance reports to the landlord since it closed its ASB file in October 2022, but it had taken no action. Given this, we reviewed the landlord’s records of its communications with the resident from November 2022 onwards.
The records show that in July and August 2023 the resident sent the landlord 6 emails about noise coming from his neighbour’s property. The neighbour was a tenant of the landlord, so he wanted it to take action. He reported the noise included a barking dog, slamming doors, loud music and people screaming. He said some of the noise occurred during the night and was affecting his sleep.
The landlord replied to each of the emails as it received them. In its responses it referred to advice it had given the resident when it closed its ASB file in October 2022. The advice was that the resident should complete and return diary sheets, and download and use a noise monitoring app. It explained the app would show how long the noise lasted, how loud it was and the time it occurred. It said that it required this evidence in order to assist the resident. It urged him in each response to provide the information and committed to send it on to its ASB team for review.
This was appropriate advice. It had closed the previous ASB file, which was about the same noise issues, in October 2022 due to a lack of evidence. It was therefore reasonable that before opening a new ASB file, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence for its ASB team to review. Its ASB policy distinguished between noise which was:
1. “Environmental” noise which was “not deliberate or targeted”. The policy explained the landlord would not categorise this as ASB but would seek to resolve this noise “proactively at the earliest opportunity”.
2. “Nuisance” which the policy defined as being “serious or sustained noise” or “sustained animal related nuisance”. The policy stated the landlord would class this as ASB. Its ASB team would work with the complainant to discuss the allegations and agree an action plan.
If the resident had provided the requested evidence, the ASB team would have been able to review it and determine what category the noise fell within. If it deemed the noise to be environmental, it could reasonably have explained that it would not treat it as ASB. However, it was not in a position to determine this either way until the resident provided the requested evidence.
By the time of the resident’s complaint in December 2023, he had not sent the landlord any of the evidence it had requested in July and August 2023. He complained that the noise remained ongoing and the landlord had done nothing to address it.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained it had not taken any action against his neighbour as he had not provided it with enough evidence. It provided him with a copy of its ASB policy and highlighted the section within it on evidence gathering. It encouraged him to complete diary sheets. It said it had referred the matter to its ASB team who would be in contact with him. This was a reasonable response to the complaint.
The ASB team duly opened a new case file for the resident on 16 January 2024. In took appropriate action in line with its ASB policy. For example, it:
1. Rang the resident and discussed his concerns.
2. Sent him an action plan.
3. Asked him to complete and return diary sheets, and to download and use the noise monitoring app.
4. Signposted him to ASB support organisations.
5. Completed a risk assessment.
6. Contacted the neighbour to let them know it had received a noise complaint about them. It told the resident it had made this contact.
7. Reviewed the case every 2 weeks. It emailed the resident on each review date and encouraged him to return diary sheets and use the app.
8. Gave the resident advance notice that it would close the case on 6 March 2024 if he did not provide it with any of the requested evidence.
9. Closed the case on 6 March 2024 as the resident did not provide it with any of the requested evidence. It emailed the resident to advise him it had closed the case.
We are aware that the landlord subsequently reopened the case in April 2024 as the resident made further reports of noise disturbance. However, the reopened case followed the same course as the previous 2 cases, with the landlord closing it as the resident did not submit diary sheets or use the app.
Overall, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It responded appropriately to his reports in line with its ASB policy. It repeatedly encouraged the resident to complete diary sheets and use the noise monitoring app. It provided clear explanations as to why it required this evidence. It also signposted him to organisations who could support him. We are satisfied this was a reasonable and proportionate response.

Handling of a window repair

Prior to raising his formal complaint in December 2023, the resident was in contact with us. He told us that his bedroom window was not closing properly. We told the landlord about this on 19 October 2023. It replied on 26 October 2023 and said this was the first time the issue had been reported to it. Its contact records support this. It appropriately raised a works order and its contractor completed the repair on 20 November 2023.
In the resident’s initial complaint email of 1 December 2023, he stated there was “a problem with the window” but did not clarify what this was. The landlord rang him to discuss his complaint on 4 December 2023. During this call he clarified the issue was that the window seal needed to be replaced. The landlord appropriately raised a works order and its contractor attended the property on 18 December 2023. Its repair log records that the contractor renewed the window seal during this appointment.
We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repair. The resident’s complaint related specifically to the seal. There is no evidence either way to indicate whether this was an issue the landlord should reasonably have noticed and resolved during its earlier appointment on 20 November 2023. However, we can say with certainty that by 4 December 2023 it was aware of a potential issue with the seal. In line with its repairs policy, it attended to this within 21 days. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the bedroom window for the same reasons we have outlined. Upon receiving the stage 2 response, the resident wrote back to the landlord and disputed that the contractor replaced the seal during the 18 December 2023 appointment. In response, the landlord asked him to provide supporting photographic evidence. This was a reasonable suggestion as it would help the landlord determine if any further work was required.
We also note that in its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to carry out a further repair inspection of the property. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange a suitable appointment time. In another letter it sent to the resident in March 2024, it offered to engage the services of an independent mediation organisation. It said this organisation could assist with helping to resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns.
We do not know if the resident arranged the further inspection or agreed that the landlord could engage a mediator. We have therefore recommended that the landlord offers again to carry out an inspection and arrange mediation. This would give the resident an opportunity to discuss any ongoing concerns he may have about the window with the landlord.

Handling of heating repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will provide an “emergency” response within 4 hours of a resident reporting their heating is not working between October and March. It will provide an “urgent” response within 3 days to reports that heating is not working between April and September.
The resident complained in December 2023 that his heating had not been fully working for over 3 years. In its complaint responses the landlord said:
1. It inspected the heating in April 2022 following a report from the resident it was not working. It found the system was “in full working order at that time”. The resident asked the heating engineers to leave the property before they had finished adjusting the settings.
2. The resident reported in April 2023 that the heating was not working as it should. It rang and emailed him to ask that he book in an inspection visit. He did not do so, however, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it should have contacted him again to see if the issue had been resolved. It had provided feedback internally to the relevant team to ensure this would not happen again.
3. It received a further report from the resident on 3 November 2023 that his heating was not working. Its contractor attended the property on 11 December and advised that the heaters were working but “due to their age they could be performing better”.
4. It replaced the heaters on 31 December 2023.
5. It had arranged for an operative to attend the property on 1 February 2024 to programme the heaters and show him how they worked. This was because he had expressed concern in his escalation request that it had not shown him how they operated.
6. Its complaints manager would also like to visit the property to “ensure that the heating system is both working as it should and that [the resident was] comfortable with the settings and operation”.
We have reviewed the landlord’s communication records, which confirm the above summary of events is accurate. However, we note that the resident also reported concerns about the heating in July, October and November 2022, and in January 2023. The landlord responded to him on all occasions to explain that based on its April 2022 inspection, it was satisfied the heating was working. It provided him with a manual for operating the system and offered each time to come out to the property and show him how the heating worked.
The landlord’s communication records show that when it made these offers to attend the property, the resident did not respond to accept or arrange an appointment. However, given this was a recurring pattern, and as the landlord knew he was vulnerable due to mental and physical health, we would have expected it to be proactive in arranging an appointment. For example, rather than placing the onus on the resident to contact it and make an appointment, it could have offered him a specific appointment time and asked him to confirm it suited. It acknowledged that it should have got back in touch with him in April 2023 to see if the issue had been resolved. It similarly should have done so following each previous report he made about the heating.
When the landlord received the resident’s report the heating was not working on 3 November 2023, its contractor should have attended the property within 4 hours in line with its repairs policy. However, the contractor did not attend until 11 December 2023. We do not know the reason for this delay so we cannot be satisfied it was unavoidable. It was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its policy. Following this, the landlord took appropriate and timely action to install new heaters.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint issues. In order to assess if this compensation offer was reasonable, we have allocated it to 2 complaint issues it upheld as follows:
1. £50 as it did not follow up with the resident in April 2023 about his heating.
2. £50 as it did not resolve the mould in the property on the first treatment. We have discussed this below in our damp and mould assessment.
We are satisfied, in line with our Remedies Guidance, that £50 was reasonable compensation for the landlord’s failure to follow up with the resident in April 2023 about his heating. However, it should pay him an additional £50 for each of its failures to follow up on his heating concerns in July, October and November 2022, and in January 2023. It should also pay him £50 for its delay in responding following his report in November 2023 that the heating was not working. This means it should pay him an additional £250 compensation.
Overall, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of heating repairs. We acknowledge it offered to show the resident how the heating system operated each time he reported an issue. Its failing was that, when he did not get back in touch to arrange an appointment, it did not then follow up with him to check if he was still experiencing any issues. It also failed to provide an emergency response within 4 hours to his November 2023 report as required by its repairs policy. However, once the contractor did attend, it then took appropriate action to promptly install new heaters.
On 1 February 2024, the day after it issued its stage 2 response, the landlord attended the property to show the resident how the heaters worked. However, as they were switched off during the visit, it was unable to fully demonstrate how to programme them. It wrote to him after the visit and explained why this was. It asked him to rearrange the appointment. He did not do so but continued to complain to the landlord that he did not know how to operate the system. It offered again in March 2024 to attend the property and show him.
When the resident referred his complaint to us in April 2024, he said he still did not know how the heaters worked and had “no trust” in the landlord to show him. He also advised us that there was a gap between the wall and a heater plug that required repair. We do not know if these issues have since been resolved. We have recommended that the landlord offers to attend the property again and show him how to operate the heating.

Response to reports of damp and mould

The resident’s initial complaint on 1 December 2023 was that the landlord’s contractor had cleaned mould from the property the previous month, but it had returned. Upon receiving this report, the landlord arranged for the contractor to carry out a further treatment on 11 December 2023. This was an appropriate and timely response.
The landlord’s prompt action meant that by the time it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023, it had resolved the mould issue. In its stage 1 response it appropriately acknowledged that the mould should not have returned after the first treatment. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for inconvenience caused by his complaint issues.
As we have explained above, we have attributed £50 of this compensation to its failure to fully resolve the mould in one treatment. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that this was a reasonable amount of compensation for this failure. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress to this aspect of the resident’s complaint prior to our investigation.
In his escalation request, the resident suggested that it took for him to complain about damp and mould for 3 years before the landlord took any action. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It commissioned an independent survey in June 2022 which found there were no underlying structural issues with the property.
2. It upgraded the bathroom extractor fan as per a recommendation in the survey report.
3. It gave the resident advice on preventing mould returning and told him to report any reoccurrence to it.
4. It responded to a report from the resident in April 2023 that there was mould in his bedroom. However, it was unable to gain access to the property to inspect and treat it. It therefore wrote to the resident in October 2023 to warn him that he was breaching his tenancy agreement by not permitting access. The resident then contacted it to arrange an appointment.
5. It carried out mould treatment in November and December 2023 which resolved the issue.
We have reviewed the landlord’s communication records, which confirm the above summary of events is accurate. We are therefore satisfied that there was not a wider failing by the landlord to address damp and mould over a prolonged period of time. Its only failing was that the mould treatment in November 2023 was unsuccessful, but it resolved this promptly in December 2023. As we have outlined, we find that it offered reasonable redress to this failing through the complaints process.

Handling of repairs to wall and ceiling cracks

The landlord carried out a survey of the property in 2022 which found there was some cracking in plasterwork that was “hairline” in nature, rather than structural. During an inspection of the property on 2 November 2023, it noted that some of the cracks remained. It told the resident it would provide him with a decorating pack so he could fill in the cracks and make good the decoration after. This was a reasonable offer which the landlord was not obliged to make as the tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for “filling small plaster cracks”.
However, by the time of the resident’s complaint a month later, the landlord had not yet provided him with the decorating pack. He also suggested in his complaint that the landlord said it would fill in the cracks.
The landlord clarified in its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023 that it was the resident’s responsibility to fill in the cracks. However, it appropriately recognised that it had delayed in providing the decorating pack. Therefore, it said that as a “gesture of goodwill”, it would fill in the cracks and decorate. We are satisfied this was a reasonable proposal to make amends for its delay in providing the decorating pack.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property the same day, 18 December 2023, and repaired the cracks. The resident told the contractor he wanted to complete the decorative work himself. He then said in his escalation request on 4 January 2024 that the landlord had offered him £250 previously so he could buy paint, but it had not yet paid him this.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the reason it had not paid the £250 it previously offered, was because the resident never confirmed how he would like it to be paid.
We have reviewed correspondence between the landlord and resident dating back to a previous complaint in 2022 about a range of issues, including repairs. During post-complaint correspondence, the landlord offered the resident a decorating voucher. The resident said he would prefer money as the voucher would not enable him to buy the quality of paint he wanted. The landlord agreed to this and offered him £250 in November 2022. It asked him to confirm if he wanted to accept this. We have seen no evidence that the resident responded. This aligns with the explanation given by the landlord in its stage 2 response as to why it did not pay the resident the £250 it previously offered.
As the resident wished to redecorate himself and had not yet done so by the time of his escalation request in January 2024, the landlord reoffered him the £250 in its stage 2 response. This was a reasonable offer which the landlord was not obliged to make given the decorative work was the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Overall, we are satisfied the landlord’s only failure in relation to the wall and ceiling cracks, was that it delayed in providing the resident with a decorating pack it offered in November 2023. Through the complaint process, it acknowledged this delay, repaired the cracks, and offered the resident £250 compensation instead of the decorating pack. We are therefore satisfied that it reasonably resolved the complaint prior to our investigation.

Handling of a communal lift repair

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported the lift was not working on 30 November 2023. It appropriately instructed its lift contractor straight away. The contractor attended that evening to inspect the lift and determined that it required a hydraulic pump to repair it.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023 that the part required had been ordered and the contractor would repair the lift on 21 December 2023. Had the contractor done so, it would have meant the repair was completed within 21 days in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
However, the contractor was unable to repair the lift on 21 December 2023 as the required part had not yet arrived. This delay was not a failing by the landlord as it had ensured the contractor ordered the part 3 weeks previously. The delay in delivery was due to circumstances beyond its control.
As the landlord had told the resident the lift would be repaired by 21 December 2023, its complaint manager appropriately rang him that day and updated him on the unforeseen delay. The resident explained this meant he would have to cancel his online grocery delivery, as he had done for the past 3 weeks while the lift was out of operation. The complaints manager reasonably offered to come to his building and carry the shopping in for him when it was delivered. The resident said that would not be necessary and he made alternative arrangements.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 3 January 2024. It told him that it was still waiting for the part to arrive but that it hoped the repair would be completed the following week. The part arrived and the contractor completed the repair on 8 January 2024. The landlord then arranged for the lift to be inspected and certified as being in safe working order by a specialist. The lift was operational again by 12 January 2024.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal lift repair. While there was a delay in the lift being repaired, this was due to circumstances beyond the landlord’s control. It kept the resident updated on the anticipated completion date. It also offered a practical solution in relation to his shopping to try and mitigate the inconvenience to him. In its stage 2 response, it apologised that the lift had been out of service for longer than it originally anticipated and for the inconvenience this caused him. We are satisfied that this was a fair and reasonable response to his complaint.

Maintenance of bins in the communal area

The landlord received formal complaints from the resident in 2020 and 2021 about a bad smell coming from the communal bin area in the building. In its responses to these complaints the landlord outlined it had taken the following action, which we find was reasonable and proportionate:
1. It provided the resident with copies of its cleaning schedules and photographs to prove cleaning was taking place.
2. It advised him the bin store was cleaned on a weekly basis.
3. It told him that it disinfected the floors monthly but, given his complaints, would increase this to twice a month. Similarly, it said it would increase its cleaning of the insides of the bins from twice a year to 4 times a year.
The resident continued to complain to the landlord about the smell from the bins during 2022. He also complained about fly-tipping and that the bins were overflowing. The landlord responded reasonably and proportionately as follows:
1. In April 2022 it told him it would send a letter to all residents in the building asking them to use the bin store area responsibly.
2. In July 2022 it said it had checked with its maintenance team and confirmed it was adhering to the agreed cleaning arrangements.
3. In October 2022 it acknowledged the smell from the bins was “prevalent” and the situation was “far from ideal”. It said it had discussed this internally and considered options such as ventilation, but that it was unable to follow through on this option as it would breach fire regulations. It would continue to regularly clean the area.
Throughout 2023 the resident continued to complain to the landlord about the smell of the bins, and he sent it photos showing they were overflowing. He suggested it should be cleaning inside the bins and disinfecting the area more regularly than it was. The landlord said it had passed his concerns on to the maintenance team for the building. It confirmed to him that it was continuing to clean the area regularly. We are satisfied that given its previous actions and explanations, this was a reasonable and proportionate response.
The resident asked the landlord to address his ongoing concerns about the bins when he raised his formal complaint in December 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it was cleaning the bin area, and inside and outside the bins themselves, on a rota basis. It acknowledged there was an issue with fly-tipping and explained that when it received a report that items had been dumped, it would “aim to get these cleared as soon as possible”.
We are satisfied this was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided us with records to show it was cleaning the building weekly and responding to report of fly-tipping by removing dumped items. While these records support its position as set out in its complaint response, we note the cleaning records are limited in detail. Given the landlord has acknowledged the smell of the bins is an issue in the building, we have recommended it reviews the level of information it records about its cleaning of the bin area.
Overall, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s maintenance of the bins. It increased the frequency of its cleaning schedule as a result of the resident’s initial complaints. It referred his subsequent reports of bad smells and overflowing bins onto its maintenance team and assured him it was adhering to the cleaning schedule. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to his reported concerns.

Processing of a compensation payment

The landlord offered the resident £95 compensation in July 2022 as part of a stage 2 response to a previous complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022 to follow this up as it had not yet paid it. It responded on 16 November 2022 and apologised for its delay in processing the payment. It said it would credit the £95 to his rent account. However, it did not do so until 1 March 2023. It told us the delay was caused by an “internal error”.
Due to this delay, we have found service failure in the landlord’s processing of the compensation payment. Given the landlord intended to credit it to the resident’s rent account, it was not awaiting information from him such as bank details. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not process the payment shortly after it offered it to him in July 2022. Its delay in doing so led to the resident spending time and trouble chasing it.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise to the resident for the delay in its stage 2 response. It simply confirmed the amount had been credited to his rent account in March 2023. Given this, we order it to apologise to the resident for its delay in processing the payment. In line with our Remedies Guidance, it should pay him £50 compensation for the time and trouble he spent chasing it.

Response to the resident’s request that it relocate an extractor fan

Further to a recommendation made by a surveyor who inspected the property in June 2022, the landlord upgraded the fan in the bathroom. As part of his complaint, the resident raised concerns that the fan’s positioning above the shower was unsafe. He asked the landlord to move it.
In response to this request, the landlord explained that it placed the fan “in the best position to extract moisture from [the] bathroom as it is designed to do”. It said its repairs team had approved the positioning. When submitting evidence as part of our investigation, it advised us that an electrician had inspected the fan and confirmed it was in a safe position.
It is a decision for the landlord as to where the fan should be located, given it is responsible for ensuring it works effectively. The landlord duly considered the resident’s request but decided not to move the fan based on advice from qualified operatives that its existing position was safe and suitable. This was reasonable. We are satisfied there no maladministration in its response to the resident’s request that it relocate the fan.
The resident raised concerns with us that that the fan cord was not fitted correctly. He did not ask the landlord to address this as part of his complaint, which related to the location of the fan only. If he remains concerned that the cord requires repair, he should raise this with the landlord.

Complaint handling

We have considered whether it was a complaint handling failure that the landlord addressed 3 issues in its stage 2 response that it did not address at stage 1. These related to the bin, the £95 compensation payment, and the extractor fan.
Of these 3 issues, the only issue raised by the resident in December 2023 as part of his stage 1 complaint was the bins. The landlord told him it would not process this concern as a formal complaint. It explained this was because it was the same issue that it had already responded to through the complaints process in 2020 and 2021. It also explained this to us in October 2023. This position was in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which do not require the landlord to process the same complaint twice. It was therefore reasonable that it did not address this issue in its stage 1 response in December 2023.
The resident continued to complain about the bins in his escalation request in January 2024. The landlord therefore decided to address the issue in its stage 2 response. As it was not required to formally respond to this issue through its complaints process, we do not consider it a failing that it did not issue a stage 1 response. By addressing it within the stage 2 response, it meant the resident was able to refer the issue to us for investigation sooner. This therefore benefitted the resident.
The resident did not ask the landlord to pay him the £95 compensation or relocate the extractor fan in his initial stage 1 complaint. He instead raised these issues in his January 2024 escalation request and asked the landlord to address them in its stage 2 response. It reasonably did so. Both issues were essentially queries to which the landlord had a straightforward response, rather than complaints requiring a detailed investigation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord responded to these queries in the stage 2 response it was already preparing, rather than raise them as new stage 1 complaints. As it responded to both issues at stage 2, it meant the resident was able to refer them to us for investigation alongside his other complaint issues.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It provided timely responses at both stages in line with its complaints process. As we have outlined in this report, it provided reasonable responses to most of the complaint issues, acknowledged its failings and explained what further action it would take to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a window repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of heating repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to his complaint about its response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to his complaint about its handling of repairs to wall and ceiling cracks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a communal lift repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s maintenance of bins in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s processing of a compensation payment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it relocate an extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses. It is broken down as follows:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of heating repairs.
  2. £50 for time and trouble due to the service failure in its processing of a compensation payment.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so, it should pay the resident the £350 compensation offered in its complaint responses (£100 at stage 1 and £250 at stage 2). Our compensation calculation for the heating repairs, and reasonable redress findings for the damp and mould, and wall and ceiling cracks, were made on the basis that this amount has been, or will be, paid.
We recommend that the landlord writes to the resident and reoffers the following:
1. To inspect the property and give him the opportunity to point out any repair issues he is concerned about.
2. To engage the services of an independent mediation organisation to assist with resolving any outstanding concerns he may have.
3. To attend the property and show him how to operate the heating. It should offer him a specific appointment date and explain what he needs to do in advance of the visit, for example, ensure the heating is switched on.
We recommend the landlord reviews its cleaning records for the resident’s building and ensures they accurately record when it cleans inside the communal bins and disinfects the floors in the bin area.