Islington Council (202006900)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006900

Islington Council

21 June 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 resident has complained about:
1. the landlord’s handling of her request for repairs to:
  1. a leak from bathroom, in particular from her toilet and shower into the living room.
  2. windows in her property.
  3. remedy garden drainage issues causing rainwater to enter the property and the shed.
  4. her toilet.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to:
  1. the hallway flooring.
  2. cracks in walls.
  3. front and rear garden paving.
  4. the property’s fences and gate.
3. The landlord’s handling of her request to install a kitchen heater.
4. The landlord’s handling of her reports of mice.
5. The landlord’s handling of her request for her shed to be replaced or made watertight.
6. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould throughout the property.
7. The landlord’s response to her request for her kitchen to be repaired or replaced.
8. The landlord’s handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities, wellbeing and health.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the hallway flooring, cracks in walls, front and rear garden paving, and the property’s fences and gate, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident’s complaints about the handling of her request to install a kitchen heater and the handling of her reports of mice are also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(a).
The resident’s complaints about the repairs to the hallway flooring and cracks in the wall were not pursued in her complaint raised on 20 July 2021 through this Service and which subsequently completed the landlord complaints procedure on 28 July 2022. The resident’s complaints about the repairs to the front and rear garden paving and the property’s fences and gate were considered at Stage 1 of the complaints procedure but not escalated to the final stage of the complaints procedure.
The resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of her request for the installation of a kitchen heater and the handling of her reports of mice were not pursued in her complaint raised on 20 July 2021 through this Service and which subsequently completed the landlord complaints procedure on 28 July 2022.
Essentially a landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint within the stages of its complaints procedure before this Service can make a determination on how it has dealt with that complaint. As the above complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, they are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to investigate in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, her tenancy commencing in 2013. The resident’s property is a two-bedroom street property over two floors. The property has sash windows. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities on record. The resident states she is disabled, and the landlord’s repair records indicate she has a wet room upstairs and a stairlift. The resident’s current rent, from 3 April 2023, is £190.10 per week. The previous rent charge up to 2 April 2023 was £178.13 per week.
The resident’s property was previously managed by Partners for Improvement (PFI) which manages properties on behalf of the landlord under two contracts. The contract for PFI came to an end on 31 March 2022, and the landlord function to manage the properties reverted to Islington Council. Although PFI acted on behalf of and carried out the landlord’s functions, this report will refer to PFI separately and specifically when necessary to aid the report’s clarity.
In 2016 the resident raised a legal disrepair case. The landlord has not provided the details of the claim stating that the property was managed by PFI at the time. However, the landlord has advised this Service that PFI installed the shed as part of the 2016 legal disrepair case as a means of storage for the personal belongings of the resident. The resident has stated that the landlord damaged the steel shed that she originally bought (15ft x 10ft) when installing it, then installed a smaller shed which it also damaged and which lets in rainfall.
At some point in time the landlord repaved the back garden to provide the resident with a low-maintenance garden.

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide, confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “Keep[ing] the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including:
1. External walls, external doors, external window frames and sills;
2. drains, gutters, external pipes;
3. access paths and steps to individual properties”.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “Keep[ing] in repair and proper working order installations for supplying water, gas, electricity and sanitation”.
The Guide states that:
1. “Sometimes damp problems in the home are the result of a leak or water penetration from outside the property, for example a blocked gutter causes overflowing rainwater to make an internal wall damp and mouldy. The council is responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues affecting your home”.
2. Where the council or its contractors identify that condensation is the cause of reported dampness or mould the tenant will be given advice on how to manage condensation including a copy of the Tips for tackling damp and mould problems leaflet”.
With regards to repairs priorities and response times, the Guide states:
1. Urgent Repairs – “Used for repairs that affect a tenant’s day-to-day living including no heating or hot water”.
2. Routine Repairs “covers non-urgent repairs e.g. minor repairs to plasterwork or resealing around a bath. The service will attend on the next available appointment. Some jobs will need an inspection first”. These works should be completed within 20 working days.
3. Recall – “This category is assigned to any works which are believed to be a recall job. A recall is raised for work that needs to be repeated due to a problem with the work done originally or a failure of a part used” and should be completed within 5 working days.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident must “tell the council, as soon as possible about any problem that the council is responsible for repairing”.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure (dated February 2017) at the time of the resident’s complaint:
1. Stage 1 – The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. A full investigation will be conducted, and a final response will be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt.
2. Stage 2 – Chief Executive’s stage. This second stage of the complaints procedure gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive. A full response is provided to the customer within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint (excluding bank holidays).
3. The complaints procedure further states that “the reasons for a request for an investigation at the CE stage and any new supporting evidence must be looked at by the receiving officer/service with a view to review the stage 1 investigation and its findings. This can be dealt with as a Stage 1 review and must be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days of receiving the new information”.
The landlord Housing Compensation Policy (November 2019 and the updated version dated April 2022) states:
1. “Compensation is payable where any room is unavailable for use for 4 weeks or more as a result of Islington Council failing to take reasonable steps to carry out repairs. Compensation is not payable in cases where repairs cannot reasonably be completed within 4 weeks due to the nature of works required. Compensation should be calculated as follows: Weekly gross rent divided by (total number of habitable rooms + 1) x number of rooms affected x number of weeks out of use”.
2. “As a rule of thumb the following bands are considered reasonable (in cases of uninhabitable rooms)”:

Degree of inconvenience	Band to consider
Slight inconvenience	500 – 1000 per annum (pro rata)
Moderate inconvenience	1000 – 1500 per annum (pro-rata)
Severe inconvenience	1500 – 2500 per annum (pro-rata)

“In certain circumstances Islington Council may have no direct liability to make payment to a resident who has suffered damage or disturbance. As a good social landlord, however, it will sometimes be in our interests to make an ex-gratia payment on a ‘without prejudice’ basis”.
The Ombudsman has also been provided a Corporate Compensation guidelines which provides concurrent, differing guidance on awarding compensation, including cases of housing repairs, but which was not applied in this case.

Summary of Events

On 23 January 2020 the landlord carried out a full property survey. It identified dampness in the property causing mould growth and subsequently completed a mould wash on 12 February 2020. These areas included the top front bedroom ceiling and windows, top back bedroom walls and windows, bathroom walls and windows, the staircase and in and around the sash window. However, the repair records further indicate that the landlord could not clear mould from walls in the bedroom, nor could it clear any mould in the living room due to suitcases and other items. The landlord post-inspected the works the following day noting that the “mould was good, apart from the front bedroom window, where the front corner joint was in need of repair”.
After the survey of 23 January 2020, the landlord raised an order to ease and adjust the windows in the resident’s property. Its repair records indicates that on 11 February 2020 it completed these works apart from the living room window as the room was filled with personal items, leaving no space. The resident declined an offer to replace the bedroom window as she wanted double glazed windows. The contractor also eased and adjusted the back door on 11 February 2020. When declining the replacement of the bedroom window, the landlord’s operative advised the resident to contact her housing officer and social worker for support and personal assistance.
On 29 January 2020 the landlord tested the resident’s toilet cistern and found no leaks. On 31 January 2020 it found no leak on the shower waste pipe, but it “renewed section of grout on tiles and fitted shower curtain up to block the water going down the window into the living room”. Its notes indicate that it could not access the living room to check whether the ceiling there had been affected by leaks due to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it agreed an appointment for 12 March 2020 to repair a leaking shower and broken toilet flush. However, it did not gain access so left a card. There is no evidence that the landlord subsequently made further attempts to complete the works.
On 23 September 2020, the resident wrote to the Chief Executive and this Service about repair issues. She stated:
1. There was damp in all rooms and the hallway, with water leaking from the shower and toilet into the living room downstairs.
2. She wanted double-glazing as the property was cold.
3. The hallway had no flooring.
4. The kitchen cabinets were broken and could not hold groceries.
5. There were mice and pests.
6. She wanted the front and back garden repaved.
7. She wanted a heater in the kitchen.
The resident advised that she was disabled and that her property was worsening her health, and that she had recently been hospitalised for three months.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord inspected the resident’s front and rear fences and assessed that they were intact with no damage.
On 13 October 2020 the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on her behalf advising:
1. The kitchen was ill-fitting.
2. There continued to be leaks in the property in particular from the bathroom to the living room.
3. Due to garden drainage issues, in particular the slope, the front and back door could let water in.
4. The living room housed items the resident had to bring in from her garden shed when it suffered water damage, due to poor drainage from the paved ground and poor shed foundations. As a result, there was poor ventilation and condensation in the living room and the garden shed still had water seeping into it. She wanted the landlord to provide a skip.
The representative referred to the resident’s property affecting her physical health and mental wellbeing, noting that the resident had been hospitalised and was awaiting treatment, although she did not provide specific details.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord attended the resident’s property to trace and remedy a bathroom leak into the living room. It identified a cracked toilet pan. It provided a temporary toilet the following day and replaced the toilet on 2 November 2020. After the resident advised that the flush on the toilet was not working correctly the landlord arranged to attend on 10 November 2020 but could not gain access on this date. The landlord agreed to reattend on 13 November 2020 to repair the syphon and the flush but after the resident advised she was not happy with the new toilet the landlord agreed to reattend again on 19 November 2020 but could not gain access.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord inspected the front garden path, noted there were “few small holes” and raised follow on repair work. Its contractor attended on 26 November 2020.
On 12 November 2020 the resident reported that her windows were draughty and had gaps, although the landlord did not note that there was water ingress.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord arranged a visit for 12 November 2020 to repair the kitchen cupboards and cracks, and also to inspect the flooring in the resident’s hallway, inspect for damp in all rooms and the hallway and inspect the draughty windows reported that day. Its repair records indicate that it left a card.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord sent a Stage 1 complaint response.
1. In response to the resident’s request that it build a storage shed and compensate for damage for personal belongings, this issue was addressed in the legal disrepair case of 2016.
2. In response to the resident’s request that it replace the resident’s fence with a higher brick or block fence, it would not carry out work to the fences given the outcome of the inspection of 8 October 2020.
3. In response to the resident stating that her gate was “low” and “weak”, without good latches, it had not received a report about the gate previously therefore it would contact the resident again to arrange an appointment.
4. It summarised the action taken to trace and remedy the leak, including the visits and works carried out regarding the toilet, completed on 13 November 2020.
5. It had not been able to inspect the damp or the resident’s hallway or been able to repair kitchen cupboards on 12 November 2020.
The landlord stated that it would make further appointments for outstanding issues. In response to the resident’s request that it replace the windows, it would arrange an inspection to identify any necessary works.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord reordered repairs to the kitchen units, and an inspection of the windows and flooring, scheduling an appointment for 13 January 2021. However, its contractor did not gain access. The landlord’s internal notes stated that there was an “onus on the resident to make contact again and reschedule”.
There was no further contact from the resident until 1 June 2021 when she reported an uncontainable leak to her toilet. The landlord’s Out of Hours Team did not gain access, but its specialist contractors attended successfully on 4 June 2021 making safe the leak with a sealant. Following another report of a leak from the toilet on 7 June 2021, the landlord ordered the toilet pan to be renewed and it carried out further interim works on 9 June 2021, securing the toilet pan with a new flexible pan connector and flush cone. It later replaced the pan on 2 July 2021.
On 20 July 2021, the representative wrote on behalf of the resident to this Service advising that her complaint remained unresolved, and as a resolution she wanted the back-garden shed replaced or made water-tight, the back garden’s drainage issues assessed and rectified, the kitchen updated, the provision of a skip, the integrity of the living room ceiling checked and the property decorated. The representative noted the resident’s “poor communication skills, due to dyslexia and being overwhelmed by one health issue after another”. This Service, noting that the landlord had previously sent a Stage 1 response on 18 December 2020, subsequently requested on 17 August 2021 that it escalate the resident’s complaint to Stage 2.
After receiving the request from this Service, on 18 August 2021 the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint because of the time that had elapsed since the previous complaint. It advised the resident that it aimed to provide a response within 15 working days, on or by 9 September 2021.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 complaint response by letter. It stated:
1. As legal disrepair was outside the remit of the complaints process, the resident should refer the issues with her shed to her solicitors.
2. On 8 October 2020, it assessed there were no contractual repair obligations to the front and rear fencing. It attended on 11 November 2020 and assessed no contractual works to the gate. However, it raised follow on works to the path which were attended to on 26 November 2020.
3. It did not gain access to attend to the report of water ingress through windows on 12 November 2020 and then on 13 January 2021. The resident had not rebooked the repair.
4. With regards to the toilet, it noted that its specialist plumber could not gain access on 19 November 2020 and that there was no further contact from the resident until 1 June 2021. This culminated in the replacement of the toilet pan on 5 July 2021.
5. With regards to the kitchen units, it did not gain access on 12 November 2020 or 13 January 2021.
6. In conclusion, it did not uphold the complaint as there were no service failing in respect of the fence, gate, windows, toilet and kitchen repairs.
On 28 September 2021 the resident escalated her complaint stating:
1. The Ombudsman had requested that the landlord respond at Stage 2.
2. No attempt was made to speak to her to understand her concerns before the response.
3. Whilst the landlord addressed the shed, fencing, gate, kitchen units, windows and toilet issues, it did not address the drainage and flooding issues that were described in her letter of 13 October 2020.
4. It took several months to repair the toilet which in turn caused flooding in the property.
5. She disputed that the issue of the replacement of the shed and compensation was outside the complaints procedure. The failure to replace the shed limited access to parts of the resident’s home due to the storage of possessions.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord sent a Stage 1 Review complaint response. It summarised the action taken on each repair item since January 2020.
1. Whilst the resident had had her toilet changed on two occasions, every time it had gained access the toilet was left in working order.
2. Since the missed appointment of 13 January 2021 for the draughty windows, the resident had not rebooked the appointment or reported further issues. (This issue was addressed under the heading “Living Room”.)
3. Since the missed appointment of 13 January 2021 for the kitchen, the resident had not rebooked the appointment or reported further issues.
4. Since January 2020, it had no prior record of the issue of garden drainage.
5. It had carried out a mould wash on 12 February 2020. Since the next appointment on 12 November 2020, which was missed, it had received no further reports of damp.
The landlord confirmed that it had not changed the outcome of the complaint. However, it would contact the representative to arrange a full property inspection and to also arrange a meeting to identify the best way to support the resident.
On 1 November 2021 the representative escalated her complaint. She stated:
1. The resident accepted that the shed issue would not be resolved within the complaints procedure.
2. It was unacceptable for the toilet to have leaked and been unusable so often between January 2020 and June 2021, reflecting substandard workmanship and parts and fixtures.
3. Regarding the kitchen, living room, garden drainage and damp, whilst the resident disputed that operatives had attended and been unable to gain entry, it was her word against the landlord’s. The resident stated she was pleased to note that the landlord accepted these areas needed inspection and that she had given authorisation for the representative to act as a point of contact in respect of the inspection and works at the property, and to attend.
4. She was concerned though that the landlord had not yet made contact about the full inspection of the property or about the meeting to identify the best method of supporting the resident.
5. She raised concerns that the ending of the contract with PFI would cause delay.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint escalation but advised it would not start the investigation at that time due to the number of complaints it was dealing with at that time.
On 16 May 2022, the landlord raised an order for a “full property survey to assess for reported damp & mould and issues of disrepair”, which was scheduled for 25 July 2022.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord attended. Its survey report confirms that it inspected all parts of the property and external areas. It inspected for mould throughout the property. It noted that all rooms in the property (apart from the shower room) and the hall, landing and storage cupboards were “full of tenants (sic) belongings restricting airflow and visual access”. It also noted damage and decay to various windows. The report also states, “Drains to and from this property in fair condition in my option I do not believe that the drainage is the cause of reported the damp in the property”.
Following the inspection of 25 July 2022, on 4 August 2022 the landlord raised various repair jobs including repairs to the front room window, both bedroom windows and the shower room window; carrying out mould treatment to the bedroom wall and ceiling; rehanging a kitchen radiator; and ease and adjusting front gate, with a target date of 1 September 2022.
With regards to damp and mould it concluded from the inspection of 25 July 2022:
1. There was surface condensation due to internal environmental conditions, as the resident was reporting in winter that the internal face of all windows were wet with condensation. This added to the decay of the timber sash windows.
2. There was poor ventilation of property; all windows closed at point of inspection.
3. The resident’s furniture and belongings were placed close to external and internal walls restricting airflow.
4. The kitchen and bathroom door were open during and after use as reported by the resident. This was allowing free movement of moisture in these areas to spread throughout property condensation on cold external surfaces.
5. The property was insufficiently heated; the heating was only used when and if necessary, as reported by the resident.
6. Clothing was dried in unventilated areas. This would allow excess moisture to condensate on cold external surfaces (one load of washing can contribute up to 10 pints of atmospheric moisture).
7. There was a lack of household maintenance when mould first seen was left to grow and develop.
8. The resident had made a water penetration report regarding a historic leak from the toilet which was repaired in 2019 by PFI.
On 28 July 2022 the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It stated:
1. There was no evidence that since the Stage 1 Review response of 13 October 2021, it had arranged a full property inspection or arranged a meeting to identify the best way to support the resident. It apologised for this.
2. The OT team had made a shower brief for the landlord in 2017, but there was no evidence that the brief was completed. It therefore enclosed an OT referral form as the resident wanted it to consider adjustments to the shower.
3. It had replaced the toilet pan on two occasions. It found that it had provided the resident with a toilet facility and completed repairs to the toilet in a timely manner until the pan was replaced.
4. The kitchen was installed around 1999 therefore was not due for renewal until approximately 2030.
5. The damp and mould survey scheduled for 25 July 2022 was amended to a full property survey to also include advice about drainage in the garden. If the surveyor believed that garden drainage was contributing to the damp in the property its drainage team would carry out a separate survey.
6. There were numerous no access appointments during 2020 and 2021. However, it upheld the complaint on the basis that there were further delays after the Stage 1 Review when proposed actions did not happen. It offered compensation of £517 for this in addition to £75 compensation for the delayed Stage 2 response. The landlord has advised this Service that the compensation of £517 represents a repairs delay of 10 months from December 2021 to the end of September 2022, when works were expected to be completed (i.e. 10 months x £41.66 = £416.40 rounded up to £417), plus £100 for time and effort in making the complaint.
On 23 August 2022 the resident advised that she did not think the landlord’s compensation offer was sufficient as there had been an unsatisfactory service since 2016. She also disputed that the landlord did not have responsibility for the shed, and noted she had to store possession previously kept in the shed in her property. The landlord responded on 2 September 2021 confirming that the compensation was intended to reflect the period of delay between December 2021 to the end of September 2022 when it anticipated repairs would be completed. The landlord has provided evidence that it has paid the compensation awarded at Stage 2.
The landlord booked and attended the resident’s property to carry out the mould treatment works on 26 August 2022, but it could not gain access. It left a voicemail but subsequently it stopped the works due to a lack of contact.
On 26 October 2022 and 10 November 2022, the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that the landlord had not increased its offer of compensation or carried out a full property survey or a comprehensive OT assessment as stated in the Stage 2 response.
The landlord rearranged the mould treatment works, originally intended to be completed on 26 August 2022 for 30 December 2022. It did not gain access on this date.
On 3 January 2023 the representative advised the landlord that it had not contacted her as agreed. She advised that without the full property inspection and ground and drainage survey, the resident would not be able to move contents within her home to a shed, which would allow works to be completed. The representative also noted that the landlord arranged a mould inspection on 30 December 2022 without contacting her, which it had to cancel as the resident was away.
The landlord has advised that it carried out a joint inspection with the advocate on 20 January 2023 and identified that the hoarding of possessions by the resident was causing damp and mould issues and preventing repairs from being carried out. It arranged for its Hoarding and Blitz Clean teams to quote on 1 February 2023.
The landlord arranged to carry out a drainage survey, entailing the inspection of the resident’s front and back gardens to see the extent of any waterlogging, on 23 January 2023; however, its repair records indicate that it could not gain access. The landlord has not since carried out the drainage survey.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property to clear a blocked manhole cover in the rear garden but could not gain access and did not receive a response to a phone call.
The landlord has advised this Service that in respect of the mould treatment works “repeated attempts to contact the resident proved unsuccessful and the works order was cancelled 20 February 2023”. No evidence has been provided to this Service of any such contact with the resident or her representative at this time.
The landlord has stated that neither its Hoarding nor its Blitz Clean teams have attended the resident’s property due to lack of access and engagement and that it will take further steps to gain access. No evidence has been provided to this Service of any contact with the resident or her representative regarding gaining access for its Hoarding and Blitz teams.

Assessment and findings

Leak from the shower and bathroom into the living room

The landlord’s repair records confirm that it initially investigated whether there was a leak from the resident’s bathroom in January 2020. It inspected the toilet cistern and shower thereby taking steps to establish whether there was a leak or not. However, its investigations were not sufficient as it was not able to inspect the living room ceiling which was where the leak was visible according to the resident.
It is evident that the resident was not satisfied that there was no leak in her bathroom as the landlord raised a further order for the toilet and shower in March 2020. However, it could not access the resident’s property at the scheduled appointment. Tenants have a responsibility to pursue repairs with the landlord as confirmed by the resident’s tenancy agreement which states that she must report repairs. Indeed, by doing so she is placing the landlord “on notice” for completion of the repairs in adherence of its repair obligations. It is not evident that the resident chased up the order after the landlord left a card at her property.
Notwithstanding the lack of response by the resident to the card left at the missed appointment of March 2020, the landlord was aware that the resident thought there was leak within her property. Moreover, it had not been able to inspect the living room ceiling which was relevant for the identification and tracing of the leak. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make proactive efforts to inspect again instead of relying on receiving more reports and then closing down the repair.
The resident reported again a possible leak from the shower and toilet into the living room in her letters to the landlord in September and October 2020. The landlord took steps to ascertain whether there was a leak at that time by attending the resident’s property on 29 October 2020. Its repair records indicate that it found a leak from the toilet, specifically a cracked pan. Whilst the resident had reported a leak earlier, it cannot be confirmed that the toilet pan was already cracked at the earlier landlord visits, and therefore that the landlord had previously missed this repair. Having identified the cracked pan, the landlord replaced the toilet thereby taking appropriate steps to remedy the leak.
There is no evidence that the resident reported another leak from the toilet until 1 June 2021. The landlord in sealing and ultimately replacing the pan took appropriate steps to remedy this further toilet leak.
However, the resident had also suggested that there may be a leak from her shower. The works completed in January 2020, grouting and installing a shower curtain, indicated that the shower could be a source of leaks within the property, as the works were intended to ensure that all shower water would correctly drain away. However, it is not evident that the landlord reinspected the shower area after the resident raised further concerns about leaks from the bathroom into her living room. It therefore did not take fully comprehensive steps to satisfy itself that the resident’s reports of leaks were fully resolved.
In reporting leaks, the resident highlighted her concern that the living room ceiling was damaged, possibly unsafe in her letters of September 2020 and October 2020 and then in pursuing her complaint of 20 July 2021. However, the landlord missed several opportunities to inspect the ceiling in response, even after the resident’s representative confirmed an inspection could be arranged through her. As well as identifying any necessary repairs and/or redecorations to the ceiling, an inspection may have assisted the landlord identifying whether there was a concealed leak or not. Ultimately it did not inspect the ceiling until carrying out a full property inspection in July 2022. This was another year after the resident submitted her complaint and therefore represented an unreasonable delay during which time the resident’s concern about the condition of the ceiling remained.

Windows

The landlord initially took steps to ensure the resident’s windows were in good condition by inspecting on 23 January 2020, then attending on 11 February 2020 to complete works. It sought to meet its obligation to keep the bedroom window in good repair by offering to replace it; it was not obliged to install a UPVC window though. It was also unable to access the living room window.
Having received further reports about the windows on 12 November 2020 the landlord made further efforts to inspect and carry out necessary works by arranging appointments for 12 November 2020 and then 13 January 2021. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for not gaining access, it was unreasonable that it was not more proactive in seeking to complete the works instead of putting the “onus on the resident”, given the potential impact of draughty windows and that it had already accepted that the living room window at least required repairs.
The landlord in responding to the resident’s complaint about her windows noted the missed appointments that had occurred, and the fact that the resident had not rebooked the appointment. However, it failed to recognise that the resident was still unhappy about the condition of the windows. It missed several opportunities to inspect them in response, even after the resident’s representative confirmed an inspection could be arranged through her, therefore did not take the necessary action to resolve this complaint in a timely way. Ultimately it did not inspect the windows until carrying out a full property inspection in July 2022. This was another year after the resident submitted her complaint and therefore represented an unreasonable delay during which time her concerns about the windows, in particular that they were not weatherproof, were not resolved.
The report from the survey confirms that the landlord identified several repairs to windows throughout the property. This indicates that the windows had not been in good repair condition. It is noted that the landlord has not been able since to complete the repairs due to access difficulties.

Garden drainage issues allowing rainwater to enter the property

The resident reported concerns about the drainage in her garden in her letter of 13 October 2020. However, the landlord did not inspect the garden or otherwise respond at the time. According to the information provided to this Service the resident reiterated her concerns about the drainage in her garden in her complaint of 20 July 2021 and her escalated complaint of 28 September 2021. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s ongoing concern about garden drainage and did not seek to resolve the issue, simply noting that it had received no reports since January 2020. This response caused further delay and was particularly unreasonable as the resident had suggested that the water was entering her property and causing damp. Furthermore, the response was inaccurate as the resident had in fact reported the drainage issues in her letter of 13 October 2020.
It was not until 25 July 2022 that the landlord inspected the resident’s garden, which exacerbated its delay in resolving this complaint. Its complaint response of 28 July 2022 was ambiguous stating that the drainage team may carry out a separate survey; however, there is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of its finding of 25 July 2022 which was that the garden drainage issues did not contribute to damp within the property. In any event, it is not evident that the inspection of 25 July 2022 is reliable as the survey report does not make reference to any water testing, inspections of the drains or areas in the property possibly affected by water ingress from the garden.
It is evident that the landlord subsequently failed to update the resident and manage her expectations as the representative stated in later correspondence that she had not heard from the landlord and understood a drainage survey was still outstanding. The landlord then evidently decided to carry out the survey, arranging a visit for 23 January 2023. Whilst the landlord has stated that it did not gain access on this date, there is no evidence that it has made further efforts to arrange the survey, which again has exacerbated the delay in conducting a full investigation and resolution of this matter.

Repairs to the toilet

As noted above the landlord carried out repairs to the toilet in October-November 2020 and June-July 2021. On both occasions the landlord replaced the toilet. In the first instance the landlord provided a temporary toilet, then after installing the new toilet, reattended to repair the syphon and flush. In the second instance it carried out works to ensure that the toilet did not leak and was secure pending replacement.
On both occasions the landlord responded in line with its timeframe for Urgent Repairs following identification of the leak. Whilst there were further works carried out, involving several appointments, ultimately the landlord took steps to ensure that the resident had a functional toilet. It therefore took appropriate steps to meet its obligation to keep the resident’s toilet in good repair. There is no evidence that the toilet was not in working order outside of the repairs carried out by the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s request for her shed to be replaced or made watertight.

It is not disputed that the landlord erected a shed for the resident in which she kept her belongings. In her letter of 13 October 2020, the resident reported that her shed was not watertight which she attributed to the garden drainage issues in conjunction with the condition of the shed foundations. In the stage 1 response the landlord did not address the repair issue raised about the shed simply noting that the shed was built following the disrepair case of 2016. The landlord reiterated this response when responding to the resident’s complaint of 20 July 2021. This response was unreasonable as the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident was reporting a repair to the shed and its foundations, nor did it explain why it was not assuming responsibility for the shed having erected it. Simply noting that there had been a legal disrepair case was not sufficiently clear as it did not set out the outcome of the case, including the terms of any orders.
Although at one point the representative advised that she accepted that the dispute over the shed would not be resolved through the complaints procedure, she continued to insist that the landlord assume responsibility for maintaining the shed. Therefore, the landlord missed further opportunities to fully explain its position and possibly resolve the complaint.
The representative also noted that the resident did not wish to store possessions in the shed so kept them in her property. The landlord did not acknowledge this. In failing to do so, the landlord failed to recognise that the shed dispute was intrinsically connected to resolving the concurrent outstanding repair issues within the resident’s property, including damp and mould. This lack of joined up thinking and lack of flexibility in the completion of repairs caused the landlord to miss opportunities to explore solutions to the resident’s wider complaint.

Handling of damp and mould throughout the property.

This report should be read in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). The report highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and to therefore carry out interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
The landlord was aware that there was dampness and mould in the resident’s property, necessitating intervention on its part from its survey of 23 January 2020. Whilst the landlord attended to clear the mould at this time, its repair records confirmed it was unable to do this throughout the property due to the resident’s belongings. However, it took no further action to ensure it could carry out the remaining mould treatment works. Taking a passive approach in this way demonstrated an acceptance of mould, which could potentially spread, in the resident’s property.
The resident referred to dampness throughout her property in her letters of 23 September 2020 and 13 October 2020. The landlord took steps to inspect ascertain the extent of the damp by arranging appointments on 12 November 2020. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for not gaining access on these dates it was unreasonable that it was not more proactive in seeking to inspect the damp. This is because of its prior knowledge of dampness and mould in the property and because of the potential impact. The landlord’s Stage 1 review response of 13 October 2021, in which it highlighted receiving no further reports since the appointment of 12 November 2020 further highlights the landlord’s passivity.
The resident made clear in her response of 1 November 2021 that damp in the property needed to be addressed, and that she expected a full inspection of the property. However, it was not until July 2022 that it inspected the mould and damp significantly exacerbating the delay in resolving the issue. When it did inspect, although it identified mould treatment works, it largely blamed the resident for the damp and mould making reference to her possessions, poor ventilation and other actions. Indeed, by referring to a “lack of household maintenance” there is no recognition that the ease of cleaning mould is dependent on the severity and cause, or of the fact that residents have differing capabilities. This was not in line with the guidance in this Service’s Spotlight report which specially states that landlords should not automatically apportion blame to tenants who report damp and mould, and that residents should be treated with respect, understanding and empathy. In any event there is no evidence that the landlord provided advice to the resident or her representative about how to reduce mould as outlined in the Housing Repairs Guide.
Although the landlord made appointments to treat the mould it is not evident that it liaised with the representative to gain access or explored ways for the resident to be supported. This was wholly inappropriate given the representative’s request and the need to deal with the mould. In fact, the landlord missed opportunities to tackle the issue of the resident’s belongings in her property which possibly contributed to the mould and at the very least prevented access for repairs. It was only in January 2023 that the landlord made a referral to its Hoarding and Blitz Clean teams which was unreasonable as it had noted the problem of the amount of the resident’s possessions in her property from the initial survey of January 2020.

Response to the resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced

The resident reported repairs to her kitchen units in her letters to the landlord of September 2020 and October 2020. The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the kitchen units was in good repair by arranging appointments to carry out works on 12 November 2020 and then 13 January 2021. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for not gaining access it was unreasonable that it was not more proactive in seeking to complete the works instead of putting the “onus on the resident”, given that the resident had advised some kitchen units were not functional, not being able to hold groceries.
In the resident’s complaint of 20 July 2021, she advised that she wanted the kitchen renewed. The landlord in responding noted the missed appointments that had occurred, and the fact that the resident had not rebooked the appointment. However, it failed to recognise that the resident was still unhappy about the kitchen, and it missed several opportunities to inspect, even after the resident’s representative confirmed an inspection could be arranged through her. Ultimately it did not inspect the kitchen until carrying out the full property inspection in July 2022. This was another year after the resident submitted her complaint and therefore represented an unreasonable delay during which time the resident’s concerns about the condition of her kitchen remained unaddressed. The fact that the resident advised that some units were functional indicated a possible health and safety issue, which in turn should have prompted a more urgent response.
The report from the survey of July 2022 confirms that the landlord assessed the condition of the kitchen and did not consider that the kitchen units needed replacing. However, it is not evident that the landlord made clear to the resident its findings; the stage 2 complaint response simply noted when the kitchen was due for renewal under a planned maintenance response which did not fully address the resident’s complaint about the condition and functionality of her kitchen at that time.

Handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered

The landlord originally responded to a complaint from the resident on 18 December 2020. After being advised by this Service in July 2021 that the resident wished to pursue her complaint it was reasonable that the landlord decided to register a new Stage 1 given the time that had elapsed since the original response. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service considers it reasonable for complaints to be raised within six months of the issue complained about arising and in this case over six months had passed since the original response. However, given the time that had elapsed and number of issues raised, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to confirm the complaints the resident wished to pursue at that point and the details of those complaints. In particular, it was unhelpful that it did not contact the resident directly before responding.
The new Stage 1 response was sent within the 15-day timeframe set out in the complaints procedure. The landlord’s review of the Stage 1 response was sent on 13 October 2021, one day outside the timeframe for responding which did not constitute a significant delay. However, the landlord, as with other Stage 2 complaints it was dealing with at the time, unreasonably delayed in responding to the Stage 2 complaint, in this case taking nearly nine months. This was considerably outside the timeframe for dealing with Stage 2 complaints.
Moreover, the landlord did not take action on the substantive issues until May 2022 when it ordered a survey, and it did not provide updates to the resident in order to manage her expectations on how her complaint was being handled. Complaint procedures provide a focus and framework for the timely resolution of complaints. In allowing the complaint to be delayed for so long with no action taken to resolve the unresolved issues, the landlord failed to meet the objective of the complaints procedure. This exacerbated the resident’s distress, inconvenience and uncertainty.
The response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaints procedure in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which specifies that stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. However, the landlord has published on its website its new complaints procedure, dated March 2023. The new complaints procedure confirms that Stage 1 formal complaints should be responded within ten days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 days. The new complaints procedure confirms that the landlord does not now require it to review the Stage 1 response before allowing the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. Therefore, the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
The landlord carried out a full property inspection on 25 July 2022 in order to decide the action it would take to resolve the resident’s complaint. However, it did not advise the resident of the outcome in the Stage 2 response of 28 July 2022, nor is there evidence that it advised the outcome subsequently. This again contributed to the uncertainty of the resident and representative who in fact advised that she thought the survey had not been carried out.
Over and above acting on the outcome of the property inspection of 25 July 2022, there was a general lack of contact by the landlord after the Stage 2 response. Although it accepted that it had not met the commitment in its Stage 1 review response to identify the best way to support the resident, it did not arrange a meeting with the representative until January 2023, six months later. Therefore, the landlord delayed in taking the action intended to ultimately resolve the complaint, which compounded the delay in considering the Stage 2 complaint in the first instance.
The landlord made a compensation offer of £417 for repair delays but did not explain to the resident how this offer was calculated, demonstrating an unnecessary lack of clarity. The award of £41.66 (for ten months) represented the lowest monthly award for a case of “slight inconvenience” (£500 ÷ 12 months). This award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case given the number of unresolved issues, including damp and mould, and the impact on the resident’s vulnerability and wellbeing. Furthermore, the compensation only represented the period of delay from December 2021 to the end of September 2022. However, repair issues were still outstanding from October 2022 therefore the award did not reflect the full length of delay. Given that repairs were not completed by October 2022 as the landlord had anticipated, it was unreasonable that it did not review the compensation award together with the progress of the resolution of complaint. This indicates that the landlord failed to maintain oversight of the complaint.

Consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities, wellbeing and health

The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerability for the resident. This is at odds with the resident stating she is disabled, and the fact that her property has a wet room and stairlift. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the landlord has carried out repairs to the stairlift in 2020 and 2022 confirming that she has ongoing mobility issues.
The resident advised the landlord that her property was affecting her physical and mental health and wellbeing in her letter of 23 September 2020 and in subsequent correspondence. There is no evidence that the landlord considered what detrimental impact, which was potentially composite and elevated, there was on the resident arising from the condition of her property at any stage after. Given the circumstances outlined by the resident, together with its prior knowledge of her mental and physical health and the history of her case, the lack of interest and consideration by the landlord at this time was wholly unreasonable. The fact that there was damp and mould and that the resident had been hospitalised on occasion provided a clear indication that a solution-focused, proactive approach sensitive to the needs of the resident was required; however, this was not taken which accentuates the landlord’s failings.
The landlord in the Stage 2 response noted that the resident wanted its OT team to make adjustments to the shower. It provided a referral form but did not take proactive steps to ensure an OT assessment was completed. This lack of proactivity was unreasonable in particular as it accepted that a previous OT shower brief from 2017 had not been followed through.
The landlord had already noted that there was an issue of the resident keeping possessions in her property which not only affected her enjoyment of the property but also contributed to repair issues. This indicated that there may have been an issue of hoarding for which the resident needed support, aside from any repairs to the shed to which possession could be moved. It is therefore of major concern that the landlord took no action to offer such support until visiting in January 2023. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the landlord had a Hoarding team to deal with such an issue. This may indicate a lack of awareness within the organisation on how to make referrals to vital support services.
The resident has been represented by a representative who made clear that the resident had communication difficulties. As noted, the landlord in the Stage 1 review response agreed a meeting whereby it could best identify the resident’s support needs. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to arrange the meeting until January 2023 despite the landlord accepting in the Stage 2 response that there had already been an unreasonable delay. The landlord has advised this Service that to date its Hoarding and Blitz Clean teams have not managed to gain access to the resident’s property to clear her possessions and carry out works; however, there is no evidence of the actions it has taken. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that it has taken reasonable steps to support the residence with the removal or relocation of obstructive possessions. This failure compounds the other failings by the landlord in considering and taking action to address the resident’s vulnerabilities and wellbeing. Taken altogether there was severe maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to a leak from the bathroom, in particular from her toilet and shower into the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to windows in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to remedy garden drainage issues causing rainwater to enter the property and the shed.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for her shed to be replaced or made watertight.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damp and mould throughout the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for her kitchen to be repaired or replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities, wellbeing and health.

Reasons

After the resident’s initial report of a leak from the bathroom in 2020, the landlord did not make sufficiently proactive efforts to inspect again. Whilst it carried out works to the toilet, it did not reinspect the shower area therefore did not take fully comprehensive steps to satisfy itself that the resident’s reports of leaks were fully resolved. It also delayed in inspecting the living room ceiling, not doing so until carrying out a full property inspection in July 2022.
After the landlord did not gain access to inspect the resident’s windows on 12 November 2020 and then 13 January 2021, it was unreasonable that it was not more proactive in seeking to complete the works instead of putting the “onus on the resident”. Ultimately it did not inspect the windows until carrying out a full property inspection in July 2022 which was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord delayed in investigating the drainage in the resident’s garden. It was not until the full property inspection of July 2022 that the landlord inspected the resident’s garden. It is not evident that the landlord advised the resident of the findings from this inspection or that the inspection was reliable. Whilst the landlord has now agreed to a drainage survey, there is no evidence that it has made reasonable efforts to conduct the survey following not gaining access on 23 January 2023.
The landlord took appropriate steps to meet its obligation to keep the resident’s toilet in good repair.
Following the resident’s request for her shed to be replaced or made water-tight, as the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident was reporting a repair to the shed and its foundations, nor did it explain why it was not assuming responsibility for the shed having erected it. The landlord also failed to recognise that the shed dispute was intrinsically connected to resolving the concurrent outstanding repair issues within the resident’s property, including damp and mould.
Having identified mould in the resident’s property at the survey of 23 January 2020, the landlord did not take sufficient action to ensure it could complete mould treatment works at this time. Following further reports of damp and mould it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in seeking to inspect. It was not until the full property inspection of July 2022 that it inspected the mould and damp which significantly exacerbated the delay in resolving the issue. Thereafter, although the landlord made appointments to treat the mould it is not evident that it liaised with the representative to gain access or explored ways for the resident to be supported. This has caused further delay.
After the landlord did not gain access to inspect the resident’s kitchen on 12 November 2020 and then 13 January 2021, it was unreasonable that it was not more proactive in seeking to gain access to complete works. Ultimately it did not inspect the kitchen until carrying out a full property inspection in July 2022 which was an unreasonable delay. It is not evident that the landlord made clear to the resident its findings from the inspection of her kitchen.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to the Stage 2 complaint and, correspondingly, taking action in respect of the substantive issues of complaint, in this case taking nearly nine months. It did not provide updates to resident during this period in order to manage her expectations on how her complaint was being handled. It did not advise the resident of the outcome of the full property inspection in the Stage 2 response of 28 July 2022. Thereafter it delayed in taking the action intended to ultimately resolve the complaint, which compounded the delay in considering the Stage 2 complaint in the first instance.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Given that repairs were not completed by October 2022 as the landlord had anticipated, it was unreasonable that it did not review the compensation award together with the progress of the resolution of complaint.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered what detrimental impact, which was potentially composite and elevated, there was on the resident arising from the condition of her property. Given the circumstances outlined by the resident, together with its prior knowledge of her mental and physical health and the history of her case, the lack of interest and consideration by the landlord at this time was wholly unreasonable.
It is of major concern that the landlord took no action to help the resident manage the amount of possessions in her property or generally offer support until inspecting with the representative in January 2023. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the landlord had a Hoarding team to deal with such an issue. Thereafter it is not evident that the Hoarding and Blitz Clean teams have taken reasonable steps to gain access to the resident’s property as necessary. Also, since the Stage 2 response the landlord has not taken proactive steps to ensure an OT assessment of the shower was completed.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology by a senior member of staff to the resident.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £375 for the failings in its investigation of a leak from the bathroom. This takes into account the period 17 August 2021 when the landlord received the resident’s complaint to 25 July 2022 when it inspected the resident’s property, which is 49 weeks. This takes into account the fact that the landlord had carried out repairs to the toilet.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £1,425.04 for the delay in inspecting the windows in the resident’s property. This is calculated as 10% of the resident’s rent for the period 13 January 2021 when it failed to gain access to 25 July 2022 when it inspected the resident’s property, which is 80 weeks.
4. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the delay in recognising and satisfactorily addressing the resident’s concern about her shed.
5. Pay the resident compensation of £375 for the delay in investigating the drainage in the resident’s garden.
6. Pay the resident compensation of £4,168.24 for the delay in taking sufficient action to resolve the mould in the resident’s property. This is calculated as 15% of the resident’s rent for the period 23 January 2020 when the landlord initially inspected the resident’s property to 20 January 2023 when it inspected the property again and identified it would need to employ its Hoarding and Blitz Clean team before being able to carry out works.
7. Pay the resident compensation of £375 for the delay in inspecting the resident’s kitchen. This takes into account the period 17 August 2021 when the landlord received the resident’s complaint to 25 July 2022 when it inspected the resident’s property, which is 49 weeks.
8. Pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and other failings identified in the handling of the resident’s complaint which includes not fully addressing all issues of complaint and failing to take adequate action to ensure actions identified in the Stage 2 response of 28 July 2022 were completed.
9. Pay the resident £1,000 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and health when dealing with her reports and formal complaint.
10. Inform the resident the outcome of the inspection of 25 July 2022 and the repairs it is intending to carry out.
11. Arrange for its Hoarding and Blitz Clean Team to attend the resident’s property and then for all outstanding works to the resident’s windows and all mould treatment works to be completed.
12. Inspect the shower area in the resident’s property to ensure that there are no leaks.
13. Carry out the garden drainage survey.
14. Confirm explicitly whether it has inspected the kitchen units and assessed whether any repairs are needed. If necessary, the landlord should carry out another inspection before responding.
15. Confirm to the resident whether it will be inspecting carrying out repairs her shed and/or its foundations. If not, it should provide a full explanation.
16. Takes steps to ascertain and record for its housing management purposes the particular vulnerabilities of the resident.
17. Take steps to ensure that the OT assessment of the shower is completed.
18. Carry out a full review of its handling of this complaint to identify lessons learnt.
In total the Ombudsman has ordered compensation of £8,468.28. If the landlord has already paid the resident the compensation awarded in its Stage 2 complaint response, it should only pay the resident the difference.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to:
1. Keeping residents updated where there are delays in complaint responses.
2. The time taken to respond to complaints at stage two.
3. How it assesses what evidence is needed to fully consider a complaint.
4. Compensation offered for distress, inconvenience, delays and time and trouble.
The landlord should share the outcome of the above review with this Service within six weeks. This review should as a minimum include:
1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, which will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
Within the next eight weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a review of its policies and procedures for dealing with vulnerable residents. It should and provide evidence to this Service that this action has been carried out. If it is not possible for the landlord to carry out the review within this timeframe it should advise this Service of the further steps it intends to take to complete the policy review with clear timeframes.