From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202345644)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345644

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs, which includes repairs to:
      1. A gate
      2. A skirting board.
      3. Bath mixer taps.
      4. The bedroom staircase.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of a light fitting, damaged by its contractor.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has vulnerabilities.
  3. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in November 2021 and identified multiple repairs. This included (relevant to the complaint we are considering) repairs to a gate, some skirting board, and the shower mixer taps. However, the landlord did not raise a works order to address these repairs until July 2022, which it attributed to an error on its part. It committed to addressing these outstanding repairs as part of a previous complaint resolution. And offered £800 compensation for the failings it had identified. The landlord’s complaint process was exhausted on 23 March 2023.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2023. The resident said the landlord had not completed all of the repairs it said it would, expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of some of the repairs it had carried out, and raised several new repairs issues. The landlord responded on 18 April 2023 by raising several works orders.
  5. The resident raised 2 subsequent complaints to the landlord about the issues we are investigating, which are referenced in this report as complaint A and complaint B.

Complaint A

  1. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 27 July 2023. The resident expressed concern about the length of time it was taking to address various repairs and to put right jobs that she felt had not been satisfactorily completed. She asked it to provide an update concerning works it had scheduled.
  2. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023, which it upheld. The landlord:
    1. Recognised that there had been delays carrying out repairs, said it was sorry it had let the resident down, and provided dates for completing outstanding repairs.
    2. Noted she had refused works to the boiler and provided its contractor’s contact detailsshould she change her mind.
    3. Offered £650 compensation, which comprised:
      1. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £250 for delays completing repairs.
      3. £150 for customer effort.
  3. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023. The resident said landlord and its contractors continued to provide a disappointing service, in the form of poor communication, contradictory messages and / or promises, delays, and poor workmanship.
  4. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2023. The landlord:
    1. Recognised that it had not done everything that it said it would do at stage 1 and apologised for the delay and inconvenience this had caused.
    2. Noted that repairs to the gate, skirting boards, mixer taps, and stairs had been completed. And explained its intentions regarding the remaining outstanding repairs.
    3. Increased its offer of compensation to £800, which comprised:
      1. £300 for delays completing repairs.
      2. £200 for the resident’s patience throughout its complaint process.
      3. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £100 for customer effort.

Complaint B

  1. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 12 August 2024. The complaint concerned the landlord’s handling of a replacement bedroom light fitting, damaged by its contractor. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2024. In summary:
    1. The resident was dissatisfied because the landlord’s contractor did not purchase the replacement light fitting from the shop she bought the light fitting from, which was of good reputation and had preferential warranties. She expressed concern about the future ownership of the new light fitting and any warranty, given its contractor had ordered this to its offices rather than to her address.
    2. The landlord:
      1. Apologised for the damage caused to the light fitting by its contractor and for the delay and inconvenience caused in resolving the matter.
      2. Accepted that it had not met the resident’s complaint resolution expectations. But said its contractor had purchased a “like for like” replacement light fitting, which while purchased from a different supplier, provided a satisfactory resolution.
      3. Explained that the warranty on the new light fitting was the same as if it had been purchased from the shop of her choosing. But said it would take responsibility if there were any issues and light needed to be replaced.
      4. Offered £175 compensation, which was broken down as follows:

(1)  • £75 for distress and inconvenience.

(2)  • £50 for customer effort.

(3)  • £50 for delays responding to the stage 2 complaint escalation request.

  1. The resident brought complaint A to us in April 2024. She expressed continued dissatisfaction with the quality of the repairs carried out by the landlord and explained there were still unresolved issues with the heating. She said the landlord should apologise, complete the repairs to a high standard, and pay compensation. The resident brought complaint B to us in November 2024. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the matter had caused her stress and frustration. She said she had been without any proper lighting in the bedroom since June 2024. She said the landlord should take full responsibility for its contractor’s actions.
  2. The resident told us on 15 August 2024 there are still unresolved issues with the heating and the shower, and she is still without a light in the bedroom. She said the landlord should address the outstanding repairs, supply, and fit a “like for like” replacement light fitting from the shop of her choice, and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of various repairs

  1. The landlord had a statutory and contractual obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. And any installation provided by the landlord in good repair and working order. Any identified repairs must be completed within a reasonable timeframe. What the landlord considers to be a reasonable timeframe is set out in its repairs policy. This states, the landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. And it will endeavour to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs during the landlord’s internal complaint investigation. However, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs to a gate, skirting boards, a bath mixer tap, and a staircase.
  3. The landlord committed in the stage 2 complaint response on 23 March 2023 to overhauling the front gate and replacing the skirting board in the toilet. The landlord tried to arrange repairs appointments with the resident but was unable to make contact. So asked the resident to get in touch to confirm her availability, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord raised a routine works order on 18 April 2023 to:
    1. Replace the garden gate (leading to the front door), reduce the height of the garden gate (right of the front door) and fit an “auto gate latch / catch / self-locking”, and replace the skirting board in the toilet. This was in line with the commitment it made on 23 March 2023.
    2. Inspect the bedroom staircase, in response to the resident’s reports about the staircase creaking. This was the first time the staircase is referenced.
    3. Overhaul the bath mixer taps, after the resident reported the cold tap was overpowering the hot tap. It is understood the landlord’s contractor had completed some repairs to the mixer tap in September 2022 as part of the previous complaint resolution.
  5. The landlord’s repairs notes suggest a repairs appointment was arranged in a timely manner for 2 May 2023. But this appointment could not go ahead “due to availability”. It has not been possible to determine whose availability the landlord was referring to, so we cannot conclude this was unreasonable.
  6. Our investigation found:
    1. Gate repairs:
      1. The repairs were subsequently completed on 1 June 2023, which was 10 working days outside of the landlord’s target response time.
      2. The landlord told us it post inspected the job, which allowed it to reassure itself the works were of a satisfactory standard. This was encouraging. We note the landlord arranged some follow-on works to paint the gates on 6 June 2024, as a gesture of goodwill.
      3. The resident explained in the stage 1 complaint on 28 July 2023 that the new gate had not been fitted properly. The landlord responded appropriately on 7 August 2023 by raising a works order to overhaul the gate and ensure it was fitted properly. This shows the landlord was treating the resident’s report with the attention deserved.
      4. The landlord committed in the stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023 to attending the property on 11 August 2023 to repair the gate, which it did.
      5. The resident suggested in the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023 that the landlord had acted contrary to its previous commitment to “fix the gate properly”, as it had not agreed to fit a gate closure. We have seen no evidence that the landlord was obliged to fit a gate closure. But the landlord responded positively to the resident’s representations on 31 August 2023 by raising instructions to fit a spring and to address a new issue with water pooling around the gate. These jobs were completed on 14 September 2023, which was within the target response timescale.
      6. Overall, it took the landlord several attempts to repair the gate to the resident’s satisfaction. But the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports and demonstrated that it was being resolution focused.

 

  1. Replacement of the skirting board in the toilet:
    1. The landlord did not progress this repair in a timely manner after the appointment was abandoned on 2 May 2023. This was unreasonable.
    2. The resident reported in the stage 1 complaint on 28 July 2023 that the skirting board in the toilet still needed replacing. The landlord responded appropriately on 7 August 2023 by raising a works order repair the skirting board.
    3. The landlord committed in the stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023 to attending the property on 11 August 2023 to complete the repair, which it did. It was unfortunate that it did not have time to replace the skirting boards during this appointment, which we note was caused by extenuating circumstances. The skirting board not replaced until 12 September 2023.
    4. There was unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the skirting board, which created frustration for the resident.
  2. Overhaul of the bath mixer taps:
    1. The landlord carried out repairs to the bath mixer taps on 25 May 2023, which was 5 working days after the expected target response time.
    2. The resident told the landlord in the stage 1 complaint on 28 July 2023 that despite the repairs it had carried out, the shower was still not working. The landlord responded appropriately on 7 August 2023 by raising a works order to overhaul the bath mixer tap, as routine works.
    3. The landlord committed in the stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023 to attending the property in a timely manner on 15 August 2023 to carry out this repair. This appointment was then rearranged for 7 September 2023 resulting in the job being completed 3 working days later than the target repair timescale. But this was likely to have been in the resident’s best interests, as the landlord was able to schedule several jobs for completion on 7 September 2023 to minimise disruption.
    4. On balance, there was minor delay in the landlord carrying our repairs to the bath mixer taps in the first instance. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports that the first repair had failed. While there was a minor delay completing the second repair, this did not cause the resident significant inconvenience.
    5. We acknowledge the resident told us in August 2025 that repairs to the bath mixer taps had failed again, resulting in her being without a shower. This is a new event, outside the scope of this investigation. However, we have made a recommendation later for consideration by the landlord, in the interests of securing a resolution.
  3. Repairs to the bedroom stairs:
    1. The landlord’s records indicate it inspected the stairs on 1 June 2023. But we could not verify the landlord’s intentions from the evidence seen and no follow-on works were arranged. The resident maintains the landlord told her the stairs could not be repaired and had to be replaced.
    2. The resident reported in the stage 1 complaint on 28 July 2023 that the steps on the bedroom staircase still needed replacing. The landlord responded on 7 August 2023 by raising a routine inspection, with a view to repairing / replacing any steps, treads, or risers that were cracked or split. This shows the landlord was trying to resolve the matter for the resident.
    3. The resident explained in the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023 that she was frustrated by the length of time she had waited for the stairs to be addressed, as this was preventing her from relaying the carpet. The landlord inspected the staircase on 31 August 2023 when it agreed for its external contractor to overhaul the staircase. The landlord’s contractor completed this in a timely manner on 7 September 2023. The landlord post inspected the works to reassure itself the job had been completed satisfactorily.
    4. There was initial delay in the landlord committing to a course of action to address the resident’s concerns about the creaking staircase, which caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. However, it committed to a timely course of action to put things right.
  1. The landlord accepted during its own complaint investigation, that there had been delays carrying out repairs and accepted that the communication with its contractors had fallen short. This shows the landlord was taking responsibility for the failings it itself had identified, which was encouraging. The landlord tried to put things right by apologising and committing to a course of action to address these repairs, which it achieved prior to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. It also made an offer of compensation.
  2. It has not been possible to determine what proportion of the £800 compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response related directly to the gate, skirting boards, mixer taps, and staircase. But we consider that the overall amount of compensation offered by the landlord was broadly in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website) and was proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident by the failings we identified in its handling of these 4 repairs.
  3. We acknowledge that the landlord had to return in March 2025 to repair the spring on the gate. And it replaced both the gates and carried further repairs to the staircase in May 2025. The circumstances around this are unclear. But these events are outside the scope of this investigation.
  4. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  5. The landlord should consider paying the £800 compensation it offered the resident on 17 October 2023 (if it has not already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings it identified in its handling of repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating.

  1. The Scheme states that we may not consider complaints, which in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of complaint handling failure.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023 with the response given by the landlord at stage 1, concerning the heating. However, the landlord did not address this within the stage 2 complaint response, which was a complaint handling failure. We will consider this later within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. It is reasonable for this investigation to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating, even although the landlord did not, given the complaint handling failure.
  3. The resident raised issues with the heating system on 28 July 2023 in the stage 1 complaint. The landlord noted the resident was concerned about how loud the boiler was. The landlord’s contractor attended the property in a timely manner on 4 August 2023 to inspect the boiler, following which it ordered a part. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 8 August 2023 to arrange an appointment to complete repair. The landlord’s records reflect “the resident said she did not want the repair to go ahead” but was given the contact details for its contractor in case she changed her mind. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The resident refuted in the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2023 that she had refused the repair. She explained that confusion had arisen because its contractor told her when it attended on 4 August 2023 that it did not know what the problem was with the boiler. She said it had asked her to monitor the boiler for error codes and report back. The resident explained that when she was told that a part had been ordered, this did not correspond with her experience on the day.
  5. We note the resident sent the landlord and its heating contractor a comprehensive email on 25 September 2023 setting out all of the issues she had been having with the heating and requesting compensation for inconvenience and damages. Its contractor committed to educating itself on the repair history and then carrying out works. It explained that compensation could be considered once the system was working. Its contractor made a timely appointment to attend the property on 4 October 2023. It is unclear of its contractor honoured this appointment. And the landlord’s records are then silent.
  6. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not address the confusion the resident said had arisen about repairs to the boiler. It would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have offered another appointment to fit the part, as a stage 2 complaint resolution. Better still, it might have offered to arrange for its heating contractor to reinspect the heating, given the additional information she had provided on 25 September 2023 and her evident dissatisfaction. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating fell short. The resident tells us there are still unresolved issues with the heating, although there was no suggestion she was without heating.
  7. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating.
  8. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range, where there have been errors by the landlord that have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which the landlord has not put right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement of a light fitting, damaged by its contractor.

  1. The landlord’s contractor accidently broke the resident’s bedroom light fitting on 28 June 2024, which she had purchased a few months before from a well-known high street store. The landlord’s contractor agreed to source a new the light fitting for the resident at its own cost, which the landlord said it would install. This was fair in the circumstances.
  2. The resident insisted the new light fitting be purchased from the store she purchased the original light fitting from (the store of her choice), due to its reputation and preferable warranties. There was some confusion over who was ordering the light, which resulted in the light not being ordered by its contractor until 2 August 2024. This caused some inconvenience to the resident, which its contractor apologised for at the time.
  3. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 12 August 2024 because the resident identified that its contractor may not have purchased the replacement light fitting from the store of her choice. And because the light fitting was not being delivered directly to her address. The resident expressed concern that the landlord would own the light and any warranty that may be provided with the light. The resident considered this was unacceptable.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 August 2024 confirming that its contractor had confirmed the light fitting had been purchased from the store of her choice. It agreed that it would hold the warranty. The resident maintained that its contractor had already confirmed the light fitting had been purchased from a different supplier. And suggested the landlord had no right to hold onto the warranty.
  5. The landlord apologised in the stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2024 that the light had been broken and for the subsequent delay and inconvenience caused to the resident in resolving the matter. It explained that it had fulfilled its obligations by purchasing a replacement light fitting, which was ready to be installed, subject to her availability. It reassured the resident that she would have full ownership and warranty rights over the light fitting, which contradicted the advice it had previously given.
  6. The resident provided details in the stage 2 complaint on 5 September 2024 of the supplier she believed its contractor had purchased the light fitting from. The resident stated the landlord had been dishonest by claiming the light fitting had been purchased from the store of her choice. It was evident there was some miscommunication by the landlord concerning where the light fitting had been acquired from and what rights the resident had. However, we saw no evidence that the landlord deliberately sought to mislead the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided to it by its contractor, given it was its contractor who ordered the light fitting.
  7. The landlord established on 25 September 2024 as part of its complaint investigation, that the light fitting had been purchased from the company who supplied the light fitting to the resident’s store of choice. It also determined that the warranty for the light fitting was the same as if it had been purchased from the store itself. It is outside of our remit to determine what ownership and warranty rights the resident had over the light fitting once it had been purchased by its contractor. This would be a legal matter. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about this and if its response was reasonable.
  8. The landlord recognised in the stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2024 that it had not met the resident’s complaint expectations, said it could understand why the resident felt let down, and offered £125 compensation in recognition of her distress inconvenience, and effort in progressing the matter. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy.
  9. However, the landlord concluded that the light fitting its contractor had purchased, offered a satisfactory resolution, as this was a “like for like” replacement. It reassured the resident that the warranty was the same as if it had been purchased from the store of her choice. But committed to take responsibility if there were any issues with replacement under the warranty in the future. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
  10. We accept the resident may have preferred the light fitting to have been purchased from the shop of choice. However, we consider the remedies offered by the landlord in this instance were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of a light fitting, damaged by its contractor.
  11. The landlord should consider paying the £125 compensation it offered the resident on 8 October 2024 (if it has not already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience by the failings it identified in its handling of the matter.
  12. We note that the resident does not currently have a light in the bedroom. The landlord should consider the merits of installing a standard light pendant in bedroom if the resident does not want it to install the light fitting its contractor has already purchased.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint procedure. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. However, the landlord may extend this by a further 10 working days if more time is needed.
  2. It was not part of the landlord’s procedure to send a stage 2 acknowledgement at the time it was responding to complaint A. However, it was part of the landlord’s procedure to send a stage 2 acknowledgement within 5 working days, when it was responding to complaint B. The landlord was required to issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the request. However, if it needed more time and there were exceptional circumstances, it could extend this by a further 20 working days.

Complaint A

  1. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 28 July 2023. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 31 July 2023 but it did not send a stage 1 acknowledgement in line with its policy. Its records suggest it spoke to the resident at some length on 1 August 2023 about the complaint. However, the landlord did not provide us with a record the conversation, so it has not been possible to determine what was discussed. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023, which was within the expected response timescale.
  2. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint by phone with the landlord on 21 August 2023. The landlord made a record of this conversation, detailing the resident’s main points of dissatisfaction. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to issue the stage 2 complaint response within the usual 20 working day timescale. The landlord did not tell the resident that it needed more time to complete its investigation, which was contrary to its policy and left the resident unclear when she would receive a response. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2023, which was 1 day later than the maximum expected response timescale under its policy.
  3. It was unreasonable that it did not address the resident’s continued dissatisfaction about its handling of repairs to the heating in the stage 2 complaint response, given it noted this was a point of continued dissatisfaction for the resident, when it recorded the stage 2 complaint. This was a significant failing, which resulted in the matter being left unresolved for the resident.

Complaint B

  1. The resident made the stage 1 complaint on 12 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged and issued the stage 1 complaint response within expected timescales. The resident made the stage 2 complaint on 5 September 2024. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 25 September 2024, which was 9 days after the expected timescale. The landlord apologised for this in the stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2024 and offered £50 compensation. This was fair and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response within the expected timescale.
  2. We make a final observation concerning the landlord’s record keeping and information management in this case. While we were able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records. For instance (not an exhaustive list), the resident was able to recount communications with various contractors and provided us with copies emails that the landlord did not share with us. And it did not provide us with all of its inspection or post inspection records for the repairs it carried out.
  3. We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management in this case was inadequate.
  4. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling. This compensation may be reduced to £150 if the landlord has already paid the £50 compensation it previously offered. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of a light fitting, damaged by its contractor.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (published on our website).
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £350 if the landlord has already paid the £50 compensation it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating.
    2. £200 compensation (inclusive of the £50 compensation the landlord previously offered on 8 October 2024), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord must offer to meet the resident to discuss any outstanding issues with the heating and to carry out a full inspection of the heating and the boiler. During the meeting, the landlord must:
    1. Commit to a course of action, as may be appropriate, to address any repairs identified. The landlord must aim to complete any identified repairs within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    2. Agree an action plan with the resident, making it clear who will do what and by when. A written copy of this action plan must be sent to the resident and to us, within 5 working days of the meeting.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider paying the £800 compensation it offered the resident on 17 October 2023 (if it has not already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings it identified in its handling of repairs.
  2. The landlord should consider paying the £125 compensation it offered the resident on 8 October 2024 (if it has not already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, by the failings it identified in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement light fitting.
  3. The landlord should consider (if it has not already done so), inspecting the bath mixer tap, which the resident states has failed. And consider if there is a long-term solution.
  4. The landlord should consider the merits of installing a standard light pendant in bedroom if the resident does not want it to install the light fitting its contractor has already purchased.