Lambeth Council (202304116)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304116

Lambeth Council

14 June 2024

 

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 the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a ground-floor, 1-bedroom flat in a building for which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s property is the sole property on the ground floor. There are neighbouring properties on the floors above. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 25 May 2022 the resident along with other occupants of the building reported a leak to the building’s roof following rainfall. The landlord attended the following day confirming the leak was originating from the roof. It said it would raise a work order and erect scaffolding at the property. On 16 June a contractor erected scaffolding to the building but no work was completed to the roof. On 26 August the resident returned home to find her living room ceiling had collapsed. The landlord carried out works to the refurbishment outlet on the roof on 2 September to resolve the leak. It installed felt and sealed the roof by 5 September. The resident would later confirm the building insurer moved the her to a hotel for 3 months from 27 September.
  3. On 3 and 4 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord had not communicated with her or other occupants between 26 May and 11 July. She said it told her on 12 July “an appointment would be booked.” She chased this again on 18 July and the landlord attended on 26 July to reconfirm the source of the problem. She states she chased the repair on 3 and 17 August and the landlord said it was “chasing its contractor.” She said she was “shocked and scared” to find her ceiling had collapsed on 26 August. The landlord’s fix of the leak was “too late” and “severe damage” had been caused. She said she had been living in hotels since 27 September which was affecting her ability to work and said that the issue was affecting her mental health. She asked the landlord for compensation for the “significant stress and undue pressure” and the damage to her possessions.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 10 October 2022. It said it had raised a work order with its contractor and “completed it on 1 August.” It apologised for the time taken for the resident to reach it and for the inconvenience experienced during “the repairs.” It upheld her complaint due to “delays” and noted “improved communications of works would be beneficial.” The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She was “super disappointed” with the landlord stating it had fixed the issue on 1 August, when this was not the case. She asked it to look at her detailed complaint of 4 October. She said she had chased the landlord many times before the ceiling collapsed on 26 August. She highlighted the “continued stress and inconvenience” she was suffering.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2022. It said the following:
    1. It apologised that its stage 1 response incorrectly said it had completed the work order on 1 August 2022. It acknowledged it had only raised a work order for scaffolding and not for the repair. It had repaired the leak on 2 September and the property “was safe” from this date. It said it was responsible for repairs to the building and communal areas, but the resident was responsible for “interior repairs.” It said this was in accordance with the “homeowner handbook.”
    2. It acknowledged it’s awareness of the ceiling collapse at her property and was sorry she had to leave the property from “27 August 2022.” It said she had explained the impact on her health and wellbeing and it “sincerely apologised.” It appreciated her frustration and the time to address the issue. It said it trusted “its action provided a resolution.” It is unclear if it upheld the resident’s complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 24 May 2023. The resident raised a number of further points to the Ombudsman relevant to this investigation as follows:
    1. She had lived with the leak “in every room” in her property for 3 months whilst she was trying to get the landlord to resolve the issue. She had chased the repair for months to no avail, but once her ceiling collapsed the landlord was able to rectify the issue in 5 days.
    2. She was out of the property for 8 months. For the first 3 months, this was from “hotel to hotel” through the landlord’s insurance. She said the issue had caused stress and anxiety and she was on sleeping tablets and signed off from work. She said she lost sentimental items including childhood and family photographs.
    3. The landlord had offered her £200 as a goodwill gesture on 21 October 2022. She said it took the offer back when she questioned what it was in relation to. She wanted compensation for “all expenses in replacing goods lost to damage.” She wanted compensation for the “distress, inconvenience and pain and suffering.” She wanted the landlord to learn from the experience.
    4. On 11 June 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman she had to replace a number of items at her property, including furnishings. She provided evidence of her purchases.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. The resident had mentioned information regarding the landlord’s insurance company and the decisions taken by it. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about insurance claims. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. It is also relevant that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make binding decisions as to possible ‘negligence’ in cases such as this.
  3. On 1 December 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord for “copies of any correspondence or information provided by the resident or third parties relating to this leak and their ongoing attempts to resolve the matter.” The landlord responded on 12 January 2023 and stated the following “Emails are too large and numerous to attached all correspondence emails attached. (sic)” The landlord failed to provide any correspondence between it and the resident between 25 May and 29 August 2022. As such in the absence of relevant information for the period 25 May to 10 October 2022, the Ombudsman’s decision has been based on the information it does hold. This includes a comprehensive sequence of events provided by the resident to the landlord in her complaint. The landlord did not dispute this sequence of events in its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.

  1. The covenants in the leasehold agreement confirm the landlord is responsible for ensuring appropriate building insurance is in place. It must also maintain, repair, and keep in good working order: exterior walls, joists, ceilings and floors of buildings, the whole structure of the roof, stacks, and gutters. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms leaseholders are “normally responsible for repairs inside the property.” It states the landlord “will undertake all repairs to the outside of the building and common areas.”
  2. The Repairs Policy classifies repairs under 5 different priorities determining how quickly it will respond. The policy gives no examples or details about what type of repair fits within each priority. This makes it difficult to understand the landlord’s process for categorising reports. However, the landlord’s website makes its process a little clearer. Its website categorises repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency repairs. It will attend to make safe within two hours and fix the repair within 24 hours. This is where there is a risk to a resident’s health and safety or if damage may be caused to the building or security of the property. It states these repairs could include making safe and repairing flooding that is damaging a property. It will complete emergency repairs that are not a risk to health within one working day.
    2. Urgent repairs. It will attend within 3 working days, unless otherwise stated.
    3. Non-urgent repairs. It will respond within 7 working days unless otherwise stated.
    4. Routine repairs. It will respond within 28 working days unless otherwise stated.
    5. The website provides no examples or description for what constitutes an urgent repair, non-urgent repair, or routine repair. This makes it difficult to understand how the landlord differentiates between each.
  3. The resident confirms she reported the leak at her property on 25 May 2022 and the landlord attended the following day to investigate the issue. Its attendance within 24 hours was in accordance with the repair’s information on its website for an emergency repair. However, there is no evidence to suggest it made the building safe. Furthermore, the resident confirms it said it would reattend to complete the repair on 8 June. The timescale between 26 May and 8 June was equivalent to 13 working days or 18 calendar days. The proposed follow-up repair does not suggest it continued to treat the repair as an emergency and did not complete a repair within one day. This placed the repair within its ‘routine repair’ classification. The resident later stated there were leaks in “every room in her property” throughout this period. This suggests the repair should have been considered as at least urgent by the landlord. Its failure to do so, caused the damage in the property to increase. This caused distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty to the resident.
  4. The landlord failed to attend to complete the repair by 8 June 2022. Its failure to complete the repair within the timescale it had previously given or within its policy caused further uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. It erected scaffolding on 16 June. It admitted in its final complaint response it had only raised a work order to install scaffolding and not complete the repair. This failure prolonged the leak at the resident’s property increasing the damage caused to her ceiling.
  5. The resident chased the repair on 12 and 18 July 2022 and the landlord said it was waiting for its contractor to confirm a date. It is uncertain why it stated this to the resident, particularly as it would admit in its final complaint response it had not raised a work order for a repair at this time. The landlord did attend again to reconfirm the source of the problem on 26 July. By this point, the equivalent of 43 working days or 63 calendar days had passed. It is unclear what action the landlord took as part of its further investigation of the issue. It is believed it raised a work order on 1 August following this. There is no evidence it took further action to complete the repair, as an emergency or otherwise. When chased by the resident on 3 August and 17 August it said it was chasing its contractor and waiting for them to attend at the property. It is unclear why it did not continue to treat the repair as an emergency following its further investigation in accordance with its procedure. As previously stated, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman, she “had a leak in every room in her property.”
  6. From 19 August 2022 the Ombudsman can find evidence of other occupants in the building and a councillor chasing the repair. There was concern due to heavy rain forecast. It confirmed on 22 August it would chase the repair with its contractor. An occupant confirmed to the landlord on 25 August a contractor attended on the same day and said they had “honestly never seen anything like it” regarding damage to properties in the building. It was unable to find the source of the leak. The same occupant reported the following day the contractor attended the same day (26 August) and said it was unable to complete an accurate inspection of the roof. It said this was due to the landlord failing to include a “jet team” and “camera survey” on its job request.
  7. The resident’s ceiling collapsed on 26 August 2022 and there is evidence another occupant of the building informed the landlord of this on 27 August. A councillor contacted the landlord’s ‘Director of Housing’ on 28 August stating the “situation” was “unacceptable.” The landlord surveyor and repairs team manager attended at the building on 31 August. It cleared a blockage and identified further work to the refurbishment outlet that it would complete on 2 September to fully repair the leak. The resident’s assertion to the Ombudsman that the landlord only took action to repair the leak “once her ceiling had collapsed” therefore presents as reasonable. It expedited its repair following this and it is uncertain if this is directly linked to the councillor contacting its Director of Housing. It is uncertain why it did not have its surveyor or repairs team manager attend with its contractor at any point before this. Had it done so it could have identified the issue with the building’s roof much sooner. It could have then completed the repair and limited damage to the resident’s property.
  8. From the initial report of 25 May 2022, the landlord took 71 working days or 101 calendar days to repair the building’s roof. Its failure to repair the roof in accordance with its policy meant it did not complete the repair “as quickly as possible” as its policy states. Its failure to resolve the issue quickly meant the resident had to manage the leak “in every room in her property” for a prolonged period. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude the outstanding repair caused damage to the resident’s ceiling, leading to its collapse. There is no evidence to the contrary to suggest this is incorrect. There is also no evidence to suggest at any point the landlord attended at the resident’s property to investigate any damage being caused or the impact on the resident. This caused her to believe it was not taking her seriously and was indifferent about the impact on her.
  9. Following its inspection of 26 May 2022 until her ceiling collapsed on 26 August there is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident. It acknowledged in its initial complaint response it would have been “beneficial” to “communicate on the progress of works.” Its failure to do this caused uncertainty and distress to the resident, whilst having to manage the effects of the leak in her property. On 29 August the landlord asked internally to provide the resident with “a direct phone number” so she did not “keep phoning its contact centres”. It should have done this much sooner than it did to support the resident with the ongoing issue.
  10. There is evidence the resident made an insurance claim through the building’s insurer and that she was placed in hotel accommodation by the insurer. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident about making an insurance claim following her report on 25 May 2022. This caused uncertainty and confusion to the resident on what action she should take. The resident asked the landlord for information about its findings on 31 August to pass to the insurer. It did provide this information to the resident the same day. There is no further evidence she raised this as an issue. In its final complaint response of 14 November 2022, it had told her “interior repairs” were her “responsibility”. This was appropriate and in accordance with the lease agreement. However, it should have provided information to support her. This could have included raising this through an insurance claim.
  11. It is unclear if the resident has made a separate insurance claim for damage to her possessions and expenses. The request for compensation made to the Ombudsman on 10 June 2024 suggests the resident has not been reimbursed for either, by an insurer or otherwise. The resident raised in her initial complaint and escalation she wanted the landlord to consider compensation. She stated this was for her expenses in having to leave the property, for damage to her personal possessions and the “significant stress” caused. The landlord failed to consider compensation in either its initial or final complaint responses. It had the opportunity to direct the resident to an insurance claim for the damage to her personal items. It could also have done this for her concern about “expenses.”  It could have also considered these under its Compensation Policy which allows for discretionary payments. Its failure to do either failed to resolve the issue for the resident. This caused her to believe it was not listening to her and was failing to take the issue seriously.
  12. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy and its procedure on its website for the repairs required at the building. It inspected the leak in an appropriate timescale but failed to raise a work order to complete or prioritise a repair. It was unable to complete a repair to the building before the resident’s ceiling collapsed. Once this occurred it acted quickly to repair the leak in the building. It should have done this much sooner to limit the damage to the resident’s property. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident to update her on the progress of the repair. This along with the landlord’s poor record keeping exacerbated the failings. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about compensation for expenses or damage to her property at any point. It never explained this to the resident or directed her to claim through a separate insurance policy.
  13. The landlord in accordance with the lease agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the relationship between it and the resident. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £1000 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its failure to consider compensation was inappropriate and failed to acknowledge the failings identified by this investigation.
  14. The Ombudsman’s Special Report on the landlord was published in February 2022. The report included findings of the landlord failing to adhere to timescales and keep residents informed. Both failings were present in this investigation. It is of serious concern that the failures in this investigation took place after the publication of the Special Report the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its policies and procedures for repairs. However, this investigation has found this information still to be unclear. An order will be made for the landlord to review this further and make appropriate changes.

The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. The evidence provided to the Service demonstrates poor record-keeping practices by the landlord. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM spotlight report) was issued in May 2023. Recommendation 11 states landlords should “review existing databases for capability and capacity to record those key data requirements”. They should ensure databases are capable of adequately capturing information about homes – for example, repairs and stock condition.
  2. Recommendation 13 of the KIM spotlight report states landlords should “ensure databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used”. This is to allow staff to “easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Where systems can be interrogated effectively, this produces crucial insight regarding patterns, themes, and potential shortfalls.”
  3. In addition to its failure to provide requested evidence to the Ombudsman, there are several instances of record-keeping failures highlighted in this report as follows:
    1. The landlord recorded only the requirement for scaffolding on 26 May 2022 and did not include the repair in its work order.
    2. The landlord failed to include in its work order in August 2022 the requirement for its contractor to complete investigatory work when attending at the property on 26 August 2022.
    3. It incorrectly informed the resident the repair at the property was resolved on 1 August 2022.
  4. The landlord’s record-keeping and failure to supply requested documents do not appear to meet these standards. It is a failing that it does not have a record-keeping system that is able to easily identify records of repairs and interventions. Repair logs should detail received reports, when a job is raised, all property visits, inspection findings and remedial action taken. It would also be reasonable to record any details of follow-up inspections or works. That the landlord has not been able to produce records that contain this level of detail, and this is indicative of poor record keeping, amounting to maladministration.
  5. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to review its current record-keeping practices and systems and ensure they are robust.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms when things go wrong “its primary focus will be on putting right the problem that has occurred.” Where it cannot do this its focus will be on “taking actions – revising policies, procedures or providing training – to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem.” Its policy ensures complaints are valued and acted on promptly.” It will deal with complaints “consistently and promptly with residents kept informed throughout the process.” Its “staff know how to respond effectively to issues raised by residents” and “learning from complaints will be used to improve its service.”
  2. The landlord has 3 stages of its complaint process as follows:
    1. Early resolution, when it wants to resolve a complaint straightaway. The landlord will contact the resident and agree on actions to resolve the issue and agree on timescales. Its response will not be in writing. If the resident wants a written response or they are dissatisfied with the outcome at this stage they can ask for their complaint to be formalised to ‘local resolution.’
    2. Local resolution, the resident must state why its response was unsatisfactory and what they would like the resolution to be. A senior member of staff will look at the problem. Its response will be in 20 working days. If it needs more time to respond it will explain this to the resident. It will provide its response in writing.
    3. The review, it asks the resident to confirm why the ‘local resolution’ was inadequate and what action it wants the landlord to take to resolve the complaint. It will not address new issues not previously addressed. The outcome of the review will represent the landlord’s final response on the matter. There is no evidence of timescales for it to provide its ‘review’ response.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 3 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day suggesting it would reply by 31 October. It is unclear if it had logged the complaint as ‘early resolution’ or ‘local resolution’ as per its Complaints Policy. The landlord provided its response on 10 October. As its response was in writing this suggests its response was ‘local resolution’. However, its correspondence did not make this clear to the resident, causing uncertainty. It provided its response before 31 October as it had advised and within 20 working days, its policy gives for a ‘local resolution’ response.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response of 10 October 2022 was poor. It apologised for its delay in responding. However, there was no delay in its response, and it is uncertain why it stated this. Furthermore, it apologised for the delay in “getting through to its service centre.” There is no evidence of the resident raising this as a concern and it is also uncertain why it stated this. The landlord provided incorrect information to the resident telling her it had completed the leak repair on 1 August. The resident had provided it with evidence of the issue continuing past 1 August 2022 in her complaint. This suggests it failed to read the resident’s concerns or fully investigate whether its assertion was true. It would later confirm the inaccuracy of this in its further response of 14 November. The errors in the letter were responsible for causing uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. It left her feeling like it was not taking the issue seriously.
  5. The landlord’s response of 10 October 2022 further showed a distinct lack of empathy or due care towards the resident, given the circumstances. It failed to refer to the ceiling collapse in her property and the impact on her. It also failed to acknowledge or consider the resident’s request for compensation. It did apologise for “delays” and its level of communication. However, its response made it unclear how it had come to this conclusion and there is no evidence of it completing a thorough investigation. Furthermore, it provided no specific response to the resident’s concerns about why it was delayed or why it failed to communicate with her. The landlord’s lacklustre attitude to the resident’s complaint caused her to believe it was not treating her seriously or fairly.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint. This caused uncertainty to the resident over whether it was listening to her concerns. The landlord replied on 14 November. The period for it to respond was equivalent to 26 working days or 36 calendar days. It confirmed its response was its “final response”. Its policy has no timescale for response. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “landlords must issue a final response within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.” The landlord’s delay in responding caused uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s response of 11 September was more effective than its previous response of 10 October. It acknowledged the resident’s ceiling collapse and the impact on her and apologised for this. It also apologised for the misinformation regarding the date the leak was repaired, provided in its earlier response. It also appropriately acknowledged the resident’s frustrations and the amount of time it took to address the repair. However, as with its earlier response, the landlord failed to explain why there was a delay in its response. It also failed to explain why it had not communicated effectively with the resident throughout the repair.
  8. The landlord’s final response of 11 September 2022 said it trusted “its actions had provided a resolution.” This was accurate of the repair to the leak, however it failed to address further issues raised in the resident’s complaint. This included her requests for compensation for damage to her personal items, the “undue pressure” caused to her and the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord told her interior repairs were her responsibility. This was in accordance with her Leaseholder Agreement. However, the landlord had the opportunity to direct her to any prospective contents insurance she may have. Its failure to do this caused uncertainty for the resident on what to do next.  In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord’s 11 September 2022 response was “vague”. This was accurate in the fact the landlord failed to explain to the resident if it had upheld her complaint or not.
  9. The landlord had identified service failures in both of its complaint responses. It is unclear why it failed to consider or award compensation to the resident. In accordance with its Compensation Policy, it could have made an award for “unjustified delays”, “providing inaccurate or misleading advice” and failure to follow landlord policies rules and procedures.” It had sufficient evidence from the resident detailing the impact on her, which its policy dictates is needed. Furthermore, its policy states it can use “reasonable judgement” to award compensation for loss of value. Its failure to consider compensation and provide an outcome to the resident left the issue unresolved. This caused uncertainty and distress to her.
  10. The resident stated in correspondence with the Ombudsman the landlord had offered her a £200 goodwill gesture on 21 October 2022. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of this due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord.
  11. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses and its Complaints Policy highlight the need to learn from complaints to improve the service it offers. There is no evidence the landlord has learnt from the failures in the delay or communication in repairing the leak. It failed to highlight what it would do to improve this in either complaint response. Furthermore, there were failures in its initial complaint response which its final complaint response acknowledged. It failed to confirm to the resident in this response what it would be doing to improve its complaint handling. Its failure to demonstrate this suggests it is not willing to learn and improve on its failures. It has failed to act in accordance with its Complaints Policy in this regard.
  12. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. Its initial complaint response was not addressed in accordance with its policy. Its response was not empathetic and was inaccurate. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its final complaint response time response time and its communication with the resident. Both complaint responses failed to acknowledge all points raised by the resident. It failed to effectively resolve the complaint and did not consider awarding compensation to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £300 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period.
  13. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint-handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents. In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1300 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s unreasonable and inappropriate handling of a leak at her property.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Provide an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
    2. The landlord must review its policy regarding repairs regarding timescales for completing different priorities of repair. It must show evidence on what information it will use to decide how to prioritise different repairs. This will include explanations and examples of each prioritisation category.
    3. Review its current record-keeping practices and systems in relation to repairs and:
      1. Complete the self-assessment tool against the KIM spotlight report.
      2. Consider whether system improvements are required; and/or
      3. Consider whether staff require further training to ensure that they are keeping and maintaining an accurate audit trail.
      4. It should provide evidence of the action it has taken in a report to the Ombudsman specifying what action it will take to remedy any found issues.