London Borough of Wandsworth (202331206)

Background

1. The resident and her young child live in a third floor flat. She has a disease that physically disables her without notice and has mental ill-health. The resident reported falling kitchen cupboard and leak repairs from when she moved in to the property, followed by window, damp and mould, and communal lift repairs and ASB from a neighbour. She complained that the landlord had allocated her an unsuitable property, did not fix the above issues, and that this affected her health and put her and her child at risk.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Property’s allocation to her and its suitability.
   2. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and related repairs at her property.
   3. Reports of communal lift repairs at her building.
   4. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
   5. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The resident’s property’s allocation to her and its suitability is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and related repairs.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of communal lift repairs.
6. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
7. There was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Allocation and suitability

8. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s property’s allocation to her and its suitability and her priority for her medical conditions falls properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (the LGSCO) jurisdiction to consider.

Leaks, damp and mould, and repairs

9. The landlord completed multiple leak, damp and mould, and related repairs at the resident’s property on time, weather and difficulties getting access and contacting her helped to delay and prevent its other repairs, and it offered her some compensation for this. However, it did not regularly try to contact her about this or often use different contact methods to do so, not all of its delays were outside of its control, it only sometimes urgently prioritised her health concerns, and its compensation offer was not proportionate to recognise this.

Communal lift repairs

10. The landlord completed communal lift repairs at the resident’s building on time, it was not responsible for her part of the building’s lift being out of service long-term for major works, it gave her regular updates, and it tried to reduce the effect of this on her. However, it could have done more to help her with this for her vulnerabilities.

ASB

11. The landlord incorrectly identified and delayed responding to the resident’s ASB reports, she had to complain to it twice to get a correct response, it did not provide records or information about its investigation and actions, and its apology and compensation were not proportionate to recognise this.

Complaint handing

12. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaints and only replied to her after we asked it to at both stages of its procedure, did not address all her concerns at stage one, and only offered her compensation for this after she complained to us.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. We do not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her property’s allocation to her and its suitability and her priority for her medical conditions falls properly within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to consider. This is because the LGSCO considers complaints about how local councils, such as the landlord, allocate their properties to residents and award priority for this, including for medical reasons. The LGSCO also considers complaints about the suitability of properties allocated in this way. For these reasons, we will not investigate the resident’s allocation and suitability complaint.

What we did not investigate

14. The resident told us that the damp and mould at her property affected her and her child’s health and safety, including because of her mental and physical health conditions, and damaged their furniture and belongings. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any personal injury and property damage caused. The courts and the landlord’s liability insurance are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical and other expert advice to decide on the cause of any injury or damage and how long they will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident has also raised more recent damp and mould issues which have occurred at her property since her complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. She has told us these are changes affecting her and her child’s health, which indicate there could be an emergency or significant hazard at the property requiring the landlord to follow the legal time limits for this. We have therefore asked it to contact the resident to review this. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence a complaint from the resident about the more recent damp and mould issues has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure yet. Therefore, we currently have no power to investigate this.
16. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal, or other procedure. In this case, the resident told us she felt the landlord’s handling of her leak, damp and mould, and related repair reports and their effect on her medical condition was racial and disability discrimination. This is better dealt with by the courts because they can make legally binding decisions about whether discrimination happened and we cannot. For this reason, we have not investigated if the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was discriminatory.

What we did investigate

17. On 24 July 2023, the landlord authorised works for a leak from the resident’s building’s roof into her hallway. These were due within 20 working days under its repairs procedure as non-urgent leak repairs. However, the landlord recorded that it was unable to complete the works at the time because it could not reach the resident to arrange the repairs and left messages for her on 30 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. It did record that the emergency repair due within one working day under the procedure that it authorised on 28 July 2023 for a leak from her bathroom into her electrical cupboard was completed on the same day. However, the property’s electrics were only described as being made safe on 1 August 2023 after the landlord was previously unable to get access. A further leak that appeared was also only fixed on 8 August 2023.
18. The landlord noted that it then replaced the resident’s fallen kitchen wall unit it authorised on 28 July 2023 within its procedure’s non-urgent timeframe on 4 August 2023. It also traced and repaired leaks from pipework within the procedure’s emergency timeframe on the same day on 8 August 2023. The landlord then authorised works on 13 September 2023 to repair the resident’s bathroom and living room windows but it missed its procedure’s non-urgent timeframe by only attending on 10 November 2023. This found damage that all the property’s windows needed to be checked for that was only done on 4 April 2024. The landlord also authorised further non-urgent pipework leak repairs on 13 September 2023 that it completed on time on 22 September 2023. It then authorised non-urgent bath panel and kitchen wall tile, worktop, and stopcock repairs on 6 October 2023 that it completed on time on 16 October 2023 and 1 November 2023, respectively.
19. Following the resident’s report about the above issues and outstanding damp and mould on 26 October 2023, the landlord authorised a survey for this on 10 November 2023 that was due within 10 working days under its website. However, it missed this timeframe and arranged the external contractor’s survey on 29 November 2023. This found a lack of ventilation and damp and mould throughout the property, which needed kitchen extractor fan and internal door works and a further leak investigation. The landlord therefore offered the resident £150 compensation for the above issues on 30 November 2023, which she turned down as not covering her costs, and authorised another roof leak inspection and works on 11 December 2023. However, it missed its procedure’s non-urgent timeframe by only completing the inspection and works on 18 January 2024.
20. The landlord also authorised urgent further bath panel and skirting repairs due within 3 working days under its procedure on 14 November 2023 that it attended on time on 17 November 2023. However, it was unable to get access for another appointment for this on 4 December 2023. The landlord did record authorising non-urgent pipework boxing in works on 6 December 2023 that it completed on time on 13 December 2023. It went on to raise urgent extractor fan and door works recommended by the contractor’s survey in November 2023, which were due within 7 working days under the procedure, on 18 January 2024. The landlord completed these works on time on 29 January 2024 and then raised a similarly urgent internal leak inspection on 19 February 2024 but did not get access for this.
21. However, the resident continued to report on 16 February 2024 that there was still damp and mould throughout her property. She said this had damaged her furniture and belongings and made her afraid for her and her child’s health. After we asked the landlord on 3 April 2024 to respond to the resident about this and other issues at stage 1 of its complaints procedure, it inspected the property on 8 April 2024 and found mould throughout on the ceilings. It therefore authorised a mould wash on 17 April 2024 but it did not complete this within the 5-working-day timeframe on its website. The landlord instead recorded that the mould wash was due within 40 working days, which was also not in line with its procedure’s timeframes. It went on to agree to complete the mould wash sooner than this on 7 June 2024 with the resident, and its inspection on 14 June 2024 then found the mould was removed and agreed to redecorate. However, this was still outside the above timeframes, which was inappropriate.
22. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 29 April 2024 nevertheless said its leak, damp and mould, and related repairs were on time apart from roof works delayed by weather, the above mould wash, and the leak inspection it raised in February 2024. It agreed to chase these and update the resident but it did not uphold her complaint and instead offered to visit to discuss her repair concerns. The landlord then told her on 20 May 2024 that it had been trying to contact her to get access to complete the mould wash and asked her to contact it to arrange this.
23. After the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 June 2024 about still needing repairs for damp and mould and to her windows, as well as for her damaged belongings to be addressed, it completed the above mould wash in June 2024. The landlord also authorised redecorating after this on 4 July 2024, but it did not follow its procedure’s timeframes for this and instead recorded that the redecorating was due within 121 working days. It then closed this job because it could not get access complete it.
24. The landlord did authorise window and further bath panel repairs on 16 August 2024, which it recorded were due within 20 and 75 working days, respectively. The window works were completed on time on 12 September 2024, but its timeframe for the bath panel repairs was again not in line with its procedure and it cancelled this job after it could not get access for it. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 August 2024 then described its above actions and offered the resident another inspection to address her repair concerns. It also gave her its liability insurance details to claim for her damaged belongings and agreed to improve its resident information about fast-returning mould. However, the landlord still did not uphold the leaks, damp and mould, and related repairs complaint.
25. The landlord told us it previously completed roof repairs for the leaks at the resident’s building on 29 January 2024 and that it authorised these again on 14 January 2025. It also said it offered her further inspections on 23 August 2024 and 25 February 2025 and thermal board works on 21 March 2025. However, the landlord said these were declined and that the resident wanted to be moved for the repairs but that it had been unable to reach her about these. It is nevertheless very concerning that she has told us she still has concerns about leaks, damp and mould, and cold affecting her and her child’s health.
26. The landlord’s previous repairs for the above issues were also delayed by 7 working days to make the electrics safe from a leak and to repair a further leak in August 2023. Its window repairs in April 2024 were 122 working days late, its November 2023 damp and mould survey was 14 working days late, its January 2024 roof leak works were 5 working days late, and its June 2024 mould wash was 37 working days late. The landlord also set incorrect timeframes for the mould wash and for the redecorating and further bath panel works it authorised in July 2024 and August 2024, respectively. These delays and incorrect timeframes were inappropriate and contrary to its procedure and website. It was also unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord and complain about outstanding works in at least October 2023, February 2024, April 2024, and June 2024.
27. However, we can see that the landlord could not always get access to complete works at the property. This included to make the electrics safe before August 2023, for bath panel and skirting works in December 2023, a leak inspection and mould wash from February 2024 to May 2024, redecorating from July 2024, and bath panel repairs from August 2024. The landlord was therefore not responsible for all of the delays and incomplete works in this case.
28. Nevertheless, the landlord’s records did not show regular attempts by it to contact the resident about the delayed and outstanding works, or that it often used different contact methods to do so. The landlord also took over 6 months from February 2024 to August 2024 to address her concerns about her damaged belongings with its liability insurance details. It additionally did not prioritise the resident’s concerns for her and her child’s health from damp and mould that she reported from at least October 2023 as urgent until November 2023 and January 2024 to February 2024, and it failed to treat these as urgent at all at other times. This very inappropriately did not follow the landlord’s website’s requirements for it to urgently inspect and address this and stop it happening again, and it has not shown it addressed her request to move for the repairs.
29. The £150 compensation that the landlord offered the resident in November 2023 for the leak, damp and mould, and related repair issues at her property was not proportionate to recognise its above failures in handling these. This is because this amount was only in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for failures by it that negatively affected her without a permanent or significant impact. The resident instead described how the landlord’s handling of her reports had significantly and permanently affected her and her young child, including because of her vulnerabilities. She said this caused them distress and inconvenience and affected their health, belongings, and the condition of her property.
30. The landlord was therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and related repairs. We have ordered it to apologise, pay her the £150 it previously offered, and pay her another £600 in line with our compensation guidance’s recommendation of awards from this amount for failures that had a significant impact on her. This has taken into account the landlord’s difficulties in getting access for and contacting the resident about the repairs. We have also ordered it to take all steps to start the outstanding works at her property, including by confirming if she can be moved for these. We have recommended it review its relevant staff’s and contractors’ training needs on its repairs procedure’s and damp and mould website’s timeframes to stop its above failures happening again.

31. The landlord recorded that it made routine service visits for the communal lifts in the resident’s building on the following dates. It visited on 3 and 28 July 2023, 27 August 2023, 1 September 2023, 1 and 28 October 2023, 24 November 2023, 28 December 2023, 26 January 2024, 23 February 2024, 20 March 2024, 23 April 2024, 29 May 2024, 25 July 2024, and 19 August 2024. The landlord also noted that it carried out safety inspections of the lifts on the following dates. It inspected on 30 July 2023, 3 January 2024, 3 April 2024, and 1 August 2024. It was appropriate that it completed the at least monthly service visits and 6-monthly safety inspections that its records said it had to do.
32. The landlord recorded that it repaired faults to the lift in the resident’s part of her building on 13 June 2023 and 31 July 2023. It noted that it repaired both faults within 4 hours, as its repairs procedure required it to for emergency lift repairs in her building. The landlord then recorded that this lift was damaged and shut down from 20 October 2023. It carried out work for this again on 23 and 25 October 2023 but it wrote to tell the resident and her neighbours on 26 October 2023 that the damage needed a specialist inspection. The landlord said this meant it could not confirm when the lift would be back in service again. It therefore apologised, gave the resident and her neighbours access to the building’s other lift, and gave them its emergency contact details for mobility and access issues.
33. However, the landlord noted that it also had to repair faults to the other lift. It repaired these on 20 and 24 October 2023, 18 November 2023, 27 December 2023, 26 January 2024, 11 February 2024, 21 March 2024, and 29 July 2024. The landlord recorded that it repaired the other lift within its procedure’s 4-hour timeframe on these dates. It nevertheless also noted that it attended call outs for the other lift but found no faults when it arrived on 11, 14, and 29 December 2023 and 4, 12, 13, and 17 January 2024.
34. The landlord additionally wrote to the resident and her neighbours again with updates on the out of service lift in her part of the building. It wrote to them on 3, 16, and 22 November 2023, 13 and 14 December 2023, 20 March 2024, 8 April 2024, 21 May 2024, 26 June 2024, and 18 July 2024. The landlord explained that the specialist lift inspections found more damage and that major works were needed to replace lift parts. The cost meant it had to consult the building’s leaseholders on the works and then invite contractors to bid to do the works from December 2023 to May 2024. The landlord could then instruct a contractor to complete the works from July 2024 to August 2024. In the meantime, it offered the resident and her neighbours details of and a meeting about the works on 10 January 2024, and it invited their comments on the works by 13 May 2024.
35. The resident explained to the landlord on 26 October 2023 that she was already concerned that her third floor flat had multiple stairs to get to it and an unreliable lift. She said this meant her physical and mental ill-health were affected by having to walk up the stairs with her young child and buggy, and by disabled family not being able to visit her because they could not use the stairs comfortably. The resident explained she sometimes used the stairs to leave her building, found the lift had issues by the time she got back, and that it was working again soon after. It is concerning that the lift problems had a negative effect on her access to and enjoyment of her property, especially given her and her family’s vulnerabilities.
36. The landlord previously responded to the resident’s above concerns about the suitability of her property on 20 June 2023. It told her that both of her building’s lifts were fairly reliable and that it was satisfied that it would fix usually fix them in a few hours when they broke down, unless there was a major issue. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained in April 2024 that it was already due to overhaul the lifts in its 2025-26 capital works programme, so it knew their condition meant they needed to be renewed shortly. Its August 2024 stage 2 complaint response then apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and confirmed the out of service lift was due to be repaired by 30 August 2024.
37. However, it is still concerning that the landlord did not take more action to help the resident with her building’s lift issues, given how often they happened, her vulnerabilities, and her difficulties with the stairs. This is because she explained her disease physically disabled her without notice, she was on the third floor, and it had a record of regular lift breakdowns and issues, even though it attended quickly and sometimes found no faults. It is positive that the landlord apologised for the resident’s inconvenience, gave her access to her building’s other lift, gave its emergency contact details for mobility and access, and sent regular and detailed updates and timescales for the major lift works.
38. The landlord’s above steps were appropriate to try and reduce some of the effect of losing her part of the building’s lift on the resident. However, its records also show it knew this meant her building’s other lift was used more and broke down more because of this. The landlord’s ability to still repair the other lift within its procedure’s 4-hour timeframe, while appropriate, did not stop the issues with this from affecting the resident, especially if she was disabled by her disease. Therefore, while she could have used its emergency contact details for help, and it was not responsible for her lift being out of service from October 2023 to August 2024, it could have done more to reduce the effect on her.
39. For example, the landlord could have taken more action to try and reassure the resident about what she should do and how it could help her if she was disabled and there were issues with the other lift while her lift was out of service during the above 10 months. It could have done so by creating either a temporary or permanent personal emergency evacuation plan about how she could leave her building in an emergency, given the out of service lift and her vulnerabilities. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not at least assess whether the resident needed this, given how serious it would be if she was disabled while needing to leave in an emergency when there were lift issues.
40. The landlord could also have reconsidered if the resident’s vulnerabilities and the out of service lift meant it should have given her either a temporary or permanent move somewhere else. This is because its above assessment that her property’s lift access was suitable for her was based on both of the building’s lifts being in service and not breaking down as much because of this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have looked at this again from October 2023 to November 2023 when it became clear to it that the resident’s lift would be out of service in the long-term for major works. However, it did not do so, which was unreasonable due to the change in circumstances at her building and the fact that its previous assessment was based on there being no major issues.
41. The landlord was therefore responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of communal lift repairs. We have ordered it to apologise and pay her £100 compensation in line with our compensation guidance’s recommendation of awards up to this amount for her distress and inconvenience from such failures that it failed to appropriately acknowledge or put right. This has taken into account that the landlord was not responsible for the resident’s lift being out of service, it gave her regular updates about this, and it took steps to reduce some of the effect on her. We have also ordered it to contact her to assess if she needs a personal emergency evacuation plan for her building and we have recommended it review its relevant staff’s training needs on this.

42. The resident’s report to the landlord on 26 October 2023 included her concerns about a neighbour who she said had mental ill-health. She described them as randomly shouting and swearing when going in and out of their property, damaging items on her building’s balcony, and lacking support for their condition. The resident said she therefore felt anxious and unsafe around the neighbour due to their unpredictable behaviour, including because they approached families with children and had sworn at and been physical with another neighbour. She thought the neighbour should not live in the same building as families like hers because of this.
43. We contacted the landlord on 3 April 2024 to ask it to respond to the resident’s above concerns about ASB from her neighbour at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. Its 29 April 2024 stage 1 response then described how it handled a different ASB incident from another neighbour. The landlord said the resident reported a noise nuisance from DIY or building works from the different neighbour’s leasehold property, which its housing officer witnessed and confirmed was loud enough to be a statutory nuisance. It said the officer therefore approached that neighbour, who tried to lower the noise at the time, and that it sent them a warning letter about this on 10 October 2023. The landlord invited the resident to report any further ASB to it but it said there were no more reports about this.
44. The resident’s stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 3 June 2024 confirmed that her ASB complaint had been about its handling of her reports about the neighbour she had told it about in October 2023 and not the other neighbour mentioned in its stage 1 response. She repeated the information she gave it in October 2023 and added that she had sent it photos of the items the neighbour damaged on her building’s balcony. The resident also said that the neighbour had sworn in the corridor around children, other neighbours could confirm this, one of them had had a police incident with the neighbour, and she felt the landlord had ignored her safety concerns about this.
45. The landlord’s 23 August 2024 stage 2 response then apologised that its stage 1 response had referred to the wrong ASB incident. It said it was aware of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour she had told it about in October 2023 but that it could not give her any personal information about them due to data protection restrictions. However, the landlord said it was investigating her reports about them and would take proportionate action for any nuisance from them, if it got evidence about this that it could act on. It also gave the resident its joint control centre’s details to report noise nuisance, its estate manager’s details to report any other ASB, offered her £50 compensation for incorrectly identifying her stage 1 ASB complaint, and agreed to improve the accuracy of its resident correspondence.
46. It was very inappropriate that the landlord’s stage 1 response misidentified the resident’s ASB reports as being about both a different neighbour from another type of property and as being about noise nuisance instead verbal abuse and property damage. It was therefore positive that it acknowledged and apologised for this, offered compensation, agreed to investigate and act on the ASB she actually reported, and improve the accuracy of its responses. However, these actions were not proportionate to put right the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s ASB reports. This is including because there is no evidence it followed its ASB procedure to assess the reports, investigate and act on them, give her support and progress updates, and work with relevant agencies.
47. It is also concerning that, while the landlord acknowledged the resident made other ASB reports about the neighbour she told it about in October 2023, it did not give us any records about this or its investigation and actions after we asked it for this. We were also not given any further ASB reports to it by her, apart from in her above complaints, but it was required to keep full, detailed, accurate, and accessible records of all of her reports and its investigations and actions. This is recommended by our spotlight report on knowledge and information management. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did so, despite telling the resident it would investigate and take action for the ASB in its stage 2 response, which was inappropriate.
48. It also took complaints at both stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure and nearly 10 months from October 2023 to August 2024 for it to correctly respond to the resident. Moreover, its brief response about this at stage 2 did not give any details of the ASB she actually reported to show it understood this, and it did not give any information about how it was investigating her reports or what action it could take for them. It was correct that the landlord followed data protection restrictions by not giving the resident any personal information about her neighbour’s ASB investigation’s specific details and actions. However, it could and should have reassured her with anonymised general information about how it would investigate her ASB reports and what steps it could take for them.
49. The landlord’s £50 compensation offer to the resident at stage 2 for incorrectly identifying her ASB complaint was only proportionate to recognise minor delays in getting matters resolved under our compensation guidance. This was therefore not proportionate to put its above failures in handling her ASB reports right in line with our guidance and so it was responsible for maladministration in its handling of this.
50. We have ordered the landlord to apologise, pay the resident the £50 it previously offered, and pay her another £200 under the range of awards recommended by our guidance for such failures that negatively affected her. This has taken into account that there was no evidence of further ASB reports and that there were data protection restrictions on the information it could share about this. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to assess any outstanding ASB concerns that she has and to investigate and act on these, give her support and progress updates, and work with relevant agencies for them in line with its procedure. We have recommended it reviews its relevant staff’s training needs on the procedure’s obligations for it to do so.

51. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy requires it to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. It defines complaints as expressions of dissatisfaction about the standard of its service and its actions or lack of action, but it does not treat first time service requests as complaints. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which otherwise requires complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days.
52. The resident clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of the landlord’s service for the issues investigated by this report on 26 October 2023. As some of these issues had only just happened, like her communal lift being out of service, and some of her other concerns, such as ASB from her neighbour, were being expressed in this way for the first time, it might have been reasonable for it to treat this as a service request. However, when the resident expressed her dissatisfaction about the above issues still being outstanding again on 16 February 2024, the landlord should have accepted this as a stage 1 complaint. It was inappropriate and contrary to its policy that it did not.
53. The landlord only acknowledged the stage 1 complaint after we asked it to on 3 April 2024. It did so on 4 April 2024. This was within its policy’s timeframe for our request but 31 and 28 working days late for the February 2024 expression of dissatisfaction under the policy and the Code, respectively. The landlord’s 29 April 2024 stage 1 response was then 7 working days late from our request and 40 working days late from the expression of dissatisfaction, which was unreasonable. As described in the previous sections of this report, the stage 1 response also did not address the resident’s concerns about her damaged belongings by giving her its liability insurance details. This also responded to the incorrect ASB complaint from her, which was inappropriate and contrary to the Code.
54. The resident’s 3 June 2024 stage 2 complaint was acknowledged within the landlord’s policy’s timeframe on 4 June 2024. However, its 23 August 2024 stage 2 response was 39 working days late and was only sent after we asked it to on 9 and 22 August 2024, which was unreasonable. This caused the resident unnecessary extra time and trouble from having to ask us to tell the landlord to respond to her, which she should not have had to do, as well as from its delays. It was appropriate that its stage 2 response apologised for its delay but it was another failure by it that this did not otherwise acknowledge or put right any of the other above complaint handling failures. This is apart from the incorrect ASB complaint compensation mentioned in the previous section.
55. After the resident complained to us, the landlord responded to our request for information about this by offering her £150 compensation for its complaint handling. It explained its delays were because it needed more time to investigate and its complaint department had since improved this and was following the Code’s timeframes. This was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for complaint handling failures that significantly affected the resident. However, the fact that there was a further delay before it offered this and it only happened after she complained to us meant there was still service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered it to apologise and pay the resident the £150 it previously offered for this.

Learning

56. The landlord did not acknowledge or put right the delays it was responsible for in repairing the resident’s property and responding to her ASB reports, or the fact that it could have done more to help her with its communal lift repairs. It also did not show it had taken learning from these issues to stop them happening again. However, the landlord did acknowledge and put right its complaint handling failures and explain how it had improved this, although only after the resident complained to us.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

57. The landlord kept full, detailed, accurate, and accessible enough records to allow us to fully investigate its handling of the resident’s property’s and communal lifts’ repairs. However, it did not give us the ASB records or details of her reports or its investigations and actions that we asked for, so we have seen no evidence of what happened for them.

Communication

58. The landlord did not regularly try to communicate with the resident about her property’s repairs or often use different contact methods to do so, and there is no evidence of ASB communication by it to her, apart from its complaint responses that were incorrect at stage 1. It also delayed responding to and did not update her on her formal complaints. However, the landlord sent the resident regular communal lift repair updates.