London Borough of Hackney (202444098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444098

London Borough of Hackney

15 September 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. inadequate heating and smoke in her property.
2. low hot water pressure and drainage issues.
3. leaks in the bathroom and subsequent repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in May 2012. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a first-floor studio flat. The resident lived alone and told the landlord she was pregnant in December 2024. Since August 2025 she has lived with her newborn child.
By 2022, the resident had reported low water pressure, inadequate heating and a smell of smoke from the old communal heating unit multiple times. The landlord said the resident reported a leak in the bathroom on 27 January 2023 and that it repaired this. It said on 19 March 2023 it identified works required to trace and remedy the leak and to repair the ceiling, toilet, and window board.
The resident raised the following issues on 5 November 2024. She said there were multiple long-standing issues in her property. She said:
1. there was inadequate heating which she worried about over winter.
2. she worried about air quality and ventilation as the old heating unit smelt like smoke.
3. the water pressure was low and there was no hot water in the bathroom.
4. there was upsurging and an unpleasant smell in the kitchen sink and she was worried about the health risks of this.
5. there had been repeated leaks in her bathroom which had caused damage.
6. she asked the landlord to relocate her due to the ongoing issues.
The landlord said it completed works to ensure adequate hot water pressure on 6 November 2024 and assessed the water pressure on 28 November 2024. It completed works and identified follow up works to remove stones in the kitchen drains on 13 November 2024.
On 4 December 2024 the resident submitted a complaint including all the issues detailed at paragraph 5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 17 December 2024. It said:
1. it would update the communal heating system but did not know when. It did not uphold this complaint element as it said it responded to her concerns.
2. she had not reported further repairs to the hot water pressure or plumbing after works on 28 November 2024. It did not uphold this complaint element.
3. after identifying required works to remove stones affecting the kitchen drains, it had delayed in completing these works.
4. she had not reported damage from a leak in the bathroom but it had booked works for 6 January 2025.
5. it advised the resident to speak to her housing officer to discuss relocation. It said this should not be necessary as it was completing the repairs.
6. it offered £100 compensation for inconvenience and £40 for avoidable delays in repairing the kitchen drains.
The resident reported a leak in her bathroom on 18 December 2024, which the landlord repaired on 19 December 2024. The landlord said it also removed stones from the kitchen drains on 19 December 2024. On 31 December 2024 the resident reported a leak in her bathroom and continued upsurging from the drains. The landlord responded to the leak the same day. The resident told the landlord she was pregnant on 31 December 2024.
On 2 January 2025 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She referred to emails she had sent the landlord about ongoing repairs in the bathroom, drainage issues, and unpleasant smells. She said the property was unsuitable for her due to outstanding repairs. On 20 January 2025 she confirmed the issue with her heating was the air quality and smoke emitted from the old heating unit as well as a lack of heating. She said she was worried about the impact of the air quality on her unborn child.
The resident reported leaks in her bathroom on 6, 15 and 21 January 2025. The landlord installed storage heaters around 31 January 2025. On 31 January 2025 it said it isolated the fan in the old heating unit. It said the smoke was from the fan motor, which needed replacing. It unblocked the kitchen sink on 3 February 2025. On 7 February 2025 the resident told the landlord her energy supplier had to instal a meter before she could use the new heating system.
On 7 February 2025 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it recommended she contact her energy provider if she needed a new meter. It said it would provide a temporary heater.
2. it would replace the fan motor in the old heating unit and request a report on the air quality in the property if the new motor did not improve the air quality. It acknowledged the impact of poor air quality as the resident was pregnant.
3. it would decide if she required temporary rehousing once it had completed an air quality survey. It advised the resident about other housing options.
4. it had not completed works following leaks in the bathroom and would contact the resident to update her about these.
5. it had generally completed prompt repairs but acknowledged inconvenience to the resident in having to report ongoing repairs.
6. it offered £1,350 compensation to replace its stage 1 offer, made up of:
  1. £850 for the delay in completing recommended bathroom repairs.
  2. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort.
  3. £100 for the impact of poor air quality as the resident was pregnant.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said the smoke issue was not resolved, the heating was insufficient, the hot water pressure was low, there were outstanding repairs to the bathroom and the landlord had not assessed whether temporary rehousing was appropriate. She said she was concerned about the impact of the smoke on her and her child’s health. She said she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs, resolve the smoke issue and ensure she had adequate heating. She also said she wanted the landlord to move her to a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that landlords have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available. Although there is a history of the resident reporting a leak in the bathroom, low water pressure, inadequate heating, and a smell of smoke from the communal heating unit, our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 12 months before her complaint. We may refer to events before this for context.
As part of the complaint the resident has expressed a desire to be rehoused. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for rehousing, and whether it acted reasonably in relation to the information it provided.

Inadequate heating and smoke

The resident’s tenancy conditions said the landlord was responsible for repairing and keeping in working order systems for supplying gas, electricity and heating. Its website gives guidance on repair timeframes and says it will respond to:
1. emergency repairs such as an uncontrollable leak within 24 hours.
2. urgent repairs such as blocked sinks within 5 working days.
3. normal repairs within 21 working days.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Excess cold and fire are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property if potential hazards are identified.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) imposes an implied term that landlords ensure potential defects, which may include hazards identified in HHSRS, do not cause the property to be unfit for human habitation.
The landlord’s “decant” policy said temporary rehousing may be needed when a property is uninhabitable due to repair works or an emergency. It said it will temporarily rehouse residents when it decides rehousing is necessary because:
1. of the nature of the works.
2. the household is especially vulnerable, and it would not be reasonable for them to remain in the property while works are completed.
The landlord told this Service it has not offered management transfers since October 2021. It said that residents were required to rejoin the housing register and bid for housing. The landlord’s website outlines moving options including mutual exchange and applying to join the housing register.
Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the need for landlords to ensure effective record keeping.
Following the resident’s reports on 5 November 2024 it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether the current heating was adequate, respond to the resident’s concerns about air quality and investigate the source of the smoke. The landlord said it raised works to instal a new electrical heating system on 6 November 2024 but cancelled this. On 12 November 2024, it told the resident it had spoken to a gas supervisor about installing a new heating system. However, it took no action to assess the adequacy of the heating, the cause of the smoke, or the air quality at this point, which was unreasonable.
As the resident asked the landlord to relocate her due to the ongoing repairs at the property, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether a management move, or temporary rehousing was appropriate and confirm its position on this to the resident. The landlord did not communicate its position on management transfers to the resident. Nor did it consider whether temporary rehousing was appropriate. This was unreasonable.
On 9 December 2024 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with her heating, it was “freezing” in the property and causing her to become unwell. She said she had to switch off the old heating unit as it was making her choke, and she was worried about potential health risks. She asked the landlord to consider moving her somewhere more suitable if this could not be resolved.
The landlord internally discussed inspecting the property to assess the adequacy of the heating but did not do so. It confirmed it was arranging to fit electric heaters in the property and that on 19 December 2024 it would complete instalment measurements. The landlord confirmed that the heating upgrade was being completed by planned asset management, not as a responsive repair.
It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to upgrade the resident’s heating system. However, despite not confirming when the new heating would be installed, it did not assess the adequacy of the heating, or whether it was responsible for repairs to ensure the heating system was in working order. Nor did it assess the cause of the smoke or whether there were any associated health risks. Consequently, it failed to identify whether it needed to take any further action. Given that it was winter and the resident had expressed health concerns, this was a failure of the landlord to have due regard to its duties under HHSRS and LTA.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
1. it was unreasonable for it not to address the smoke issue or adequacy of the heating.
2. it was reasonable for it to suggest the resident spoke to her housing officer about relocation.
3. it was unreasonable for it not to assess whether it was appropriate to temporarily rehouse her. This is because there were works outstanding and she had raised concerns about the impact on her health.
On 31 December 2024 and 2 January 2025, the resident said her property was unsuitable and asked the landlord to move her to a bigger property without disrepair. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to talk to the housing options team and provide their contact details in relation to her request for a bigger property. However, it was unreasonable for it not to assess whether it was appropriate to temporarily rehouse her due to the outstanding works.
On 11 and 19 January 2025 the resident said her home was “freezing” and that she had to switch off the old heating unit as it was creating fumes and worsening her pregnancy nausea. She asked the landlord to find her alternative accommodation. On 20 and 22 January 2025 she said she felt sick, was worried about the potential health impact on her unborn child and said there was no heating. She asked the landlord to provide temporary rehousing. She chased the landlord about the smoke on 29 January 2025. Despite discussing temporary rehousing internally, it did not assess the risk or whether temporary rehousing was appropriate in the circumstances, which was unreasonable.
On 31 January 2025 the resident told the landlord she had put duct tape over the vent. It internally raised concerns about the motor catching fire. It said it attended the property on the same day, which the resident confirmed. This was reasonable. It said it isolated the fan and confirmed the smoke was from the fan motor which needed to be replaced. However, it has not provided evidence of this. Following this visit, there is no evidence the landlord replaced the motor or assessed the priority of these works, which was unreasonable. The resident confirmed the smoke was still entering her property on 2 February 2025.
The landlord and resident confirmed new heating was installed around 31 January 2025. On 7 February 2025 the resident told the landlord she was waiting for her energy supplier to instal a new meter before she could use it.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response:
1. it was reasonable for it to advise the resident to contact her energy supplier about the meter and agree to provide additional temporary heating.
2. it did not address whether the heating was adequate or asses any related risk, which was unreasonable.
3. it acknowledged the poor air quality and its increased impact due to the resident’s pregnancy and attempted to put things right by offering some redress. However, it did not assess the risk which was unreasonable.
4. it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the old heating unit’s fan motor and request an air quality report if this did not improve the air quality. However, it was unreasonable for it to only agree to assess whether temporary rehousing was appropriate once it had completed these actions.
5. it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the resident’s move options and signpost her to its website or other teams for further information.
There is no evidence it installed a new fan motor in the old heating unit or completed an air quality survey. It said the resident did not allow access to the property to remove the unit. She said the landlord told her it could not remove the unit and had agreed to complete a fire risk assessment before completing any works to it. The resident said the landlord drained the old unit in July 2025 and that there is still smoke coming from it.
The resident confirmed that the landlord provided a temporary heater. She told it the new heating system still does not work and the heating in her property is insufficient despite a temporary heater. She also told the landlord that it needs to take action to enable the energy supplier to instal a meter for the new heating system to work.
The landlord said its surveyors did not consider temporary rehousing to be necessary. However, it has not provided any evidence that it assessed this. The resident said the landlord has not confirmed whether it is appropriate to temporarily rehouse her. It failed to do so repeatedly, despite multiple reports of health concerns and requests for rehousing. It did not acknowledge this or attempt to put things right within its complaints process.
The resident had low mood, anxiety and prenatal depression, which she said was impacted by the ongoing issues with the heating and smoke entering the property. She sent a substantial number of emails chasing the landlord and said she experienced distress. She said she had to have counselling as a result. The resident’s midwife said they were concerned about repeated exposure to smoke due to the risks that second hand smoke poses to pregnant women and newborn children.
The landlord did not assess whether there was a risk to the resident or her child’s health for a significant period of time, and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord repeatedly failed to address the resident’s concerns which had a seriously detrimental impact on her. The landlord failed to demonstrate it put things right and learnt from outcomes.
Due to the repeated lack of action by the landlord, the resident’s vulnerability and the impact on her, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inadequate heating and smoke in her property. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £950 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings of severe maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. It may deduct the compensation it offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if this has already been paid.
We have ordered the landlord to inspect the property, assess whether the old heating unit poses any health risks, complete an air quality survey and assess whether the resident’s current heating is adequate. We have ordered it to confirm its findings and any follow up actions it will take. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the old heating unit, air quality and heating/ temperature, considering any vulnerabilities. We have ordered it to assess whether it is appropriate to temporarily rehouse the resident as part of this risk assessment.
We have ordered the landlord to replace the fan as agreed in its stage 2 response or confirm its position on this. We have ordered it to address the resident’s concerns that the smoke issue is ongoing and confirm the action it will take to resolve this. We have recommended that the landlord responds to the resident’s reports that that it needs to take action to enable the energy supplier to instal a meter for the new heating system to work.

Low hot water pressure and drainage issues

The resident’s tenancy conditions said the landlord was responsible for repairing and keeping in working order systems for supplying and providing water and sanitation. Its repairs guide confirmed major blockages and upsurging drains were its responsibility. Insufficient drainage is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
When the resident told the landlord the water pressure was low and there was no hot water in the bathroom on 5 November 2024, it said it raised works on the same day. It said it attended on 6 November 2024, completed a repair and confirmed there was adequate pressure from the hot water taps. However, it has not provided evidence of these works, which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord booked an appointment for 28 November 2024 to assess the water pressure but has not provided evidence of its findings, which is unreasonable. Given that the resident said low hot water pressure was a recurring issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess it, identify the cause and any required works, and communicate this to her.
On 12 November 2024 the landlord raised emergency works due to dirty foaming water upsurging in the kitchen sink. As the resident had raised health concerns, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not assess the priority of the works or raise them until 5 working days after the resident’s report.
On 13 November 2024 it cleared the drains and identified that stones needed to be removed. Once it had raised the works, its response was in line with its timescales for emergency works. The resident told the landlord the property smelt like sewage on 9 December 2024. It did not raise works to remove the stones until 12 December 2024. This was an unreasonable delay in the circumstances, given the resident’s previous reports.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in raising works to remove the stones in the resident’s kitchen drain. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to put things right by offering compensation. However, it did not identify whether it had completed to repair to remove stones or when it would do so. The landlord said it attended to remove stones from the kitchen drain on 19 December 2024. However, it has not provided evidence of this which is a record keeping failure.
On 31 December 2024 the resident reported that there was an up-spray of waste and a smell of sulphur and said this was affecting her health as she was pregnant. The landlord did not assess the priority of the resident’s reports, or raise a repair at this point, which was unreasonable. It raised an emergency repair to unblock the kitchen sink on 3 February 2025 and completed the repair on the same day. The landlord’s records suggest a lack of internal communication impacted the delay in responding to the resident’s reports, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the inconvenience the ongoing repairs and effort in having to report them caused the resident. It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of put things right for the landlord to offer some redress, although it is unclear what proportion of the £400 offered for distress, inconvenience, time and effort was for the water pressure and drainage issues.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had completed prompt repairs and did not acknowledge its delay in responding to the resident’s reports of an up-spray of waste and a smell of sulphur on 31 December 2024 or the resident’s reported impact on her health. This was unreasonable. Additionally, given that it did not know the outcome of the low water pressure checks on 28 November 2024, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to check whether it had resolved this and confirm its position. The landlord did not show any learning from this element of the complaint. The resident reported that the water pressure is still low.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low hot water pressure and drainage issues for the reasons set out above. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It may deduct the compensation it offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if this has already been paid. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm its position on the low water pressure and whether this has been resolved.

Leaks in the bathroom and subsequent repairs

When the resident told the landlord on 5 November 2024 that she was unhappy about the leaks in her bathroom that had caused damage, it initially did not respond. This was unreasonable. After she raised this again on 4 December 2024, the landlord said it spoke to her and that she told it there was bathroom ceiling damage following a leak. The landlord raised normal works on 13 December 2024 to clean and paint the bathroom ceiling. It booked these works for 6 January 2025, which was in line with its repairs timescales.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident had not reported a leak in the bathroom that happened 3 months ago. It did not acknowledge that it had not completed works recommended in March 2023 following a bathroom leak. This was unreasonable.
On 18 December 2024 the resident reported a bathroom leak from the flat above. On 19 December 2024 the landlord attended, repaired the leak and reported follow on works for the flat above. This was within its repairs timescales. On 31 December 2024 the resident reported an uncontrollable leak from the flat above. The landlord attended the same day to contain the leak in line with its repairs timescales, although it is unclear what works it completed.
The cleaning and painting of the bathroom ceiling did not go ahead in January 2025 as there were ongoing leaks. The evidence suggests the leaks were intermittent. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to complete works to repair them or confirm its actions to the resident when she reported leaks on 6, 15 and 21 January 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to identify the cause of the leaks, complete repairs and update the resident. She has confirmed to this Service that the leak is not ongoing.
In its stage 2 response it was reasonable for the landlord to identify works it had not completed since March 2023 and agree to update the resident on this. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer redress and consider the amount of time the repairs had been outstanding. However, it did not address the leaks reported in January 2025.
On 11 March 2025 the landlord said it completed the bathroom works recommended on 19 March 2023 to trace the leak, provide a dehumidifier, plaster and repair the ceiling, and renew the cistern and window board. It is unclear from the evidence what works were completed. The resident said it provided a dehumidifier but did not complete any repairs. The landlord did not provide a clear update following its stage 2 response and it is unclear whether the repairs have been completed.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom and subsequent repairs. The compensation offered for this element of the complaint was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. However, we have ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports that there were leaks in January 2025. We have also ordered it to complete the bathroom repairs recommended on 19 March 2023 and/or confirm its position on this.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) said that landlords should:
1. acknowledge complaints at stages 1 and 2 within 5 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
4. progress complaints to stage 2 if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1.
On 5 November 2024 the resident raised a complaint. In the landlord’s response on 12 November 2024, it said the resident agreed to closing the complaint. It offered to open a new complaint if it did not complete the actions it had agreed. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of this complaint. However, the resident’s complaint on 4 December 2024 was identical to the one she raised on 5 November 2024. Given that she did not consider the complaint of 5 November 2024 to be resolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat her complaint of 4 December 2024 as an escalation request. That it did not may have delayed the complaint being resolved and the resident being able to access this Service, which was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 December 2024, within 4 working days, and issued its stage 1 response within 5 working days of acknowledgement. This was in line with the Code. When the resident said on 31 December 2024 that she did not accept the compensation and the issues had not been resolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether to escalate her complaint at this point. When the resident confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 2 January 2025, the landlord acknowledged this within 6 working days which was just outside the Code. It issued a stage 2 response 20 working days after the acknowledgement, which was in line with the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge or offer redress for its complaint handling failures in its complaints process. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It may deduct the compensation it offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if this has already been paid.
Since the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident attempted to raise a stage 3 complaint to the landlord on 23 February 2025. She also tried to raise a new complaint on 8 June 2025. The landlord said it would not consider these complaints as they were the same as the complaint referred to this Service. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to raise a new complaint if she was raising new issues or dissatisfied with its response since stage 2. We have recommended that the landlord discusses the resident’s concerns including whether she wishes to raise a new complaint.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate heating and smoke in her property.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of low hot water pressure and drainage issues.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom and subsequent repairs.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation. The apology is to be made by the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
2. write to the resident and:
  1. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
  2. address her concerns that the smoke issue is ongoing and confirm what action it will take to resolve this.
  3. confirm its position on the low water pressure, including whether the water pressure is sufficient, and if any works are required to improve it.
  4. respond to the resident’s reports there were ongoing leaks in the bathroom in January 2025.
3. instruct a suitably qualified expert to inspect the property, confirm the source of the smoke, assess whether the old heating unit poses any health risks and complete an air quality survey. The landlord is to confirm its findings and any follow-up actions it will take to the resident in writing.
4. instruct a suitably qualified expert to inspect the property and assess whether the resident’s heating is adequate. The landlord is to confirm its findings and any follow-up actions it will take to the resident in writing.
5. complete a risk assessment of the old heating unit, air quality and heating/ temperature which considers any household vulnerabilities and send a copy of this to the resident. The risk assessment should identify any measures required to reduce risk and whether it is appropriate to temporarily rehouse the resident. The landlord should send a copy of this to the resident.
6. replace the fan in the old heating unit as agreed in its stage 2 response or confirm its position on this to the resident in writing.
7. complete the bathroom repairs recommended on 19 March 2023 and/or confirm its position on this to the resident in writing.
pay the resident a total of £2,150 compensation, made up of:
1. £950 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inadequate heating and smoke in her property.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low hot water pressure and drainage issues.
3. £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom and subsequent repairs.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. the landlord may deduct the £1,350 it previously offered in its complaint responses if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. responds to the resident’s reports that it needs to take action to enable the energy supplier to instal a meter for the new heating system to work.
2. discusses the resident’s recent concerns including whether she wishes to raise a new complaint.