London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201912002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912002

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 June 2021

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s underfloor heating system and its subsequent offer of compensation.
2. The landlord’s decision to offset some of the compensation awarded to the resident against her rent arrears.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant of the landlord since December 2018.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the tenant agrees to ‘pay the rent weekly and in advance’. It also states that ‘the trust may off-set any sums owed to it by the Tenant…against any compensation payable…under this Agreement or at all.’
The landlord has a Repair Responsibilities Handbook, issued to residents. In the handbook, it states that the landlord will ‘make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order’. It also provides another booklet entitled ‘Your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant’ in which it states ‘We will repair…your heating system if it breaks down’.
The landlord also has a Compensation Policy. Section 4.1 of the policy (Service failure and losses) indicates that compensation will be considered where a resident experiences a ‘loss of facilities/amenities in the home e;g. heating’. Elsewhere in the policy, it states that in line with Right to Repair obligations, compensation for a loss of heating is set at £5 a day between 1 November and 30 April, although this is guidance only and may be increased at the landlord’s discretion. The policy also states ‘we will partly or fully offset a compensation payment or service charge refund against any debt owed to us by the customer’.
The landlord operates a two-step complaints policy. Its Policy states that, once a complaint is registered, ‘if matters cannot be resolved immediately an action plan may be needed. Action plans will state what steps we are going to take to resolve the complaint with timescales. This will be agreed with the customer as soon as possible and no later than 10 working days’. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s Stage One response, they can request that their complaint is escalated for a Senior Manager Review.

Summary of Events

On 1 February 2019, the landlord’s repair records note an electrician attended the resident’s property following a report that her underfloor heating was not working. It advised that a heating specialist needed to investigate the heating system because some parts of the system were not working. It noted an order to carry out further investigation needed to be raised.
On 1 May 2019, landlord records indicate a further inspection was carried out by a contractor who noted that there was no fault with the electrics, fuses, supply or thermostat. They also advised that an underfloor heating specialist was required.
On 1 October 2019, internal landlord correspondence indicates that it acknowledged the resident’s underfloor heating ‘is not working, she called us on numerous occasion(s) nothing has been resolved…everyone who (we) have spoken to does not seem to know who the contractor is for underfloor heating’.
On 4 October 2019, a contractor carried out a further inspection. Again, records show it noted that there were no electrical issues but that only half the resident’s lounge floor became hot when the underfloor heating system was turned on. It recommended that a plumber attend to investigate further.
On 13 November 2019, internal landlord records show it queried whether a plumber needed to attend. It concurred that the job should be reallocated to another contractor who specialised in underfloor heating. Having raised a new order with a different contractor, on 27 November 2019, that contractor confirmed to the landlord that they did not deal with underfloor heating.
On 29 November 2019, the landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident regarding the fact that her underfloor heating was still not working.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord raised a new order with another contractor to investigate the issue.
On 13 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and stated she was still without central heating in her property. She also reported there was a build-up of mould and condensation around her windows, a situation that was being exacerbated by the lack of heating. She noted she had had at least four operatives attend who had been unable to resolve the problems with her heating, listed the contractors who had attended so far and noted that the landlord had on more than one occasion attempted to send a plumber to investigate despite it being an electric system.
On 3 January 2020, landlord records note a report from the contractor following their inspection of the underfloor heating on 24 December 2019. The contractor noted they could not ‘see a way of rectifying these problems with the heating and bearing in mind the age of the installation and the amount of wasted time even trying to correct this system’. The report suggested alternative solutions such as ‘electric panel heaters, off & off peak storage heaters’ or an electric boiler and the installation of radiators. The inspection report also noted that the resident’s heating did not appear to be working in her hallway, bathroom, and kitchen/lounge while it was not possible to detect any increase in heat in the bedroom.
On 22 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again, chasing its complaint response. In an email she noted that she had now stopped paying her rent and would continue to do so until the problem with her heating had been resolved. She requested that the landlord waive her rent charges for the period she had been left without heating in her property. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 February 2020 and noted she was still yet to receive a response to her complaint. She then contacted this Service on 2 March 2020 as her complaint had still not been responded to.
On 3 March 2020, landlord records show that the resident contacted it for an update regarding when she would be getting a new heating system. Records note that she was advised by the landlord that it ‘was looking at getting the underfloor heating fixed’ and would not be replacing the system.
On 4 March 2020, the landlord replied to the resident and apologised for not yet having provided a formal response to her complaint. It advised this was because it had not yet been able to identify an appropriate resolution to the resident’s heating problems, as two quotes it had obtained for the repair had not been approved. It advised that it had now identified an underfloor heating specialist and was ‘trying to get them on board’. It further advised that it would ‘look into calculating compensation for the service failure for the amount of time you have been without heating and also for the distress and inconvenience caused’ as soon as it had a confirmed repair date.
On 23 March 2020, landlord repair records show a new order was raised with another contractor, an underfloor heating specialist, for ‘initial works’ although the exact nature of the work is not noted.
On 22 July 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to inform it was resuming ‘non-critical works’ that had been raised ‘prior to Covid 19’. It advised her it would be in contact again once it had established whether its contractor had resumed usual service and that it would calculate a compensation amount once the repair ‘has been completed and (her) complaint has been resolved’.
On 13 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to chase progress on the status of the heating repair, advising that she had not yet been contacted. The landlord responded on 19 August 2020 and advised that it was waiting on the contractor to confirm it could safely attend her property.
Landlord records indicate the contractor attended on 25 August 2020 and managed to restore the underfloor heating to the resident’s bathroom. However, the contractor noted that the system in the rest of the property could not be repaired and provided the landlord with a report to that effect the following day, advising that it recommended the installation of two oil filled heaters in the lounge and one in the bedroom. The landlord updated the resident on 17 September 2020, stating it was awaiting a date for the heaters to be installed.
On 26 September 2020, the resident again chased the landlord for progress on the repair. It responded on 2 October 2020 and advised that it was waiting for its Accounts Team to approve the contractor on its internal systems.
Landlord repair records note that its contractor was booked to ‘install oil filled radiators as a replacement system for the failed underfloor heating’ on 4 November 2020.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response. It noted the following:
1. A contractor attended the resident’s property in January 2019 and advised the landlord it could not repair her underfloor heating, however it repeatedly re-raised further orders to the contractor between January and December 2019.
2. In December 2019, it obtained quotes from two further contractors relating to the repair of the underfloor heating, however both quotes were declined ‘as both contractors were unable to confirm that the heating they had quoted for, (would) provide enough heat for the size of your property’.
3. On 4 March 2020, the landlord sourced a further contractor who was due to attend the resident’s property on 25 March 2020. However, due to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdown restrictions, the contractor put all appointments on hold. They finally inspected the resident’s property on 16 September 2020 and quoted for oil filled radiators to be installed to the resident’s property.
4. There was then a further delay in approving this quote before the radiators were installed on 4 November 2020.
5. It apologised to the resident and offered £2,400 in compensation, made up of £500 for inconvenience, £500 for distress and £1,400 for the resident’s lack of heating during winter months (240 days at £5 per day). It advised the resident her complaint would be escalated if she was unhappy with its response.
On 1 December 2020, the resident responded to the landlord and requested that her complaint be escalated. She advised she felt that she should either receive all the compensation awarded, rather than have it offset against her rent arrears, or the amount should be increased so that she received the £2,400 offered and her arrears were cleared. She noted that she had effectively been without adequate heating since she moved in in December 2018 and that being left without heating during the winter months had negatively affected her, as she had at times been unable to dry her clothes, mould grew around the property, and she needed to wear winter jackets indoors. She also noted that alternative heating sources that she had had to source had proved expensive to use. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the same day and advised that a ‘senior member of the team’ would respond within 10 working days.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding and advised it would now carry out a full review of her complaint as well as a review of the amount of compensation offered. It confirmed it would award further compensation for the delay in responding to her escalation request and would provide a full response by 28 January 2021.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord issued its Stage Two (Senior Management Review) response. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response and advised that this was was due to staff illness. It confirmed that it had awarded the resident a further £50 compensation for the delayed response. However, the landlord advised that, having reviewed the complaint, it did not consider that there were grounds to increase the amount of compensation it had awarded the resident in its Stage One response in regards to the underfloor heating system repair. It also confirmed that it could not agree to the resident’s request to pay the compensation to her directly, rather than offsetting it against her rent account. It quoted its compensation policy, noting that ‘where customers have outstanding rent arrears, we will partly or fully offset a compensation payment or award against the debts’. However, as the resident’s rent was covered by Universal Credit and thus paid four weeks in arrears, the landlord accepted that four weeks’ worth of the arrears on her rent account were the responsibility of Universal Credit and would therefore award her that respective amount of compensation directly. It confirmed it would pay the resident £612.16 directly (four x £153.04 weekly rent and service charge) and the remaining amount of £1,837.84 would be paid to her rent account.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s underfloor heating system and its subsequent offer of compensation.

As part of this investigation, this Service requested repair records from the landlord. These show that, from the time of the landlord’s first inspection of the resident’s underfloor heating system in late January or early February 2019, it had been advised that a specialist was required to investigate the issue. A further inspection took place in May 2019 when it was again noted that a specialist was required to investigate. However, from that point it is not clear from the records what action, if any, the landlord took regarding the issue until October 2019, when a further inspection took place. At that time, it was advised that a plumber needed to attend. Another inspection order was subsequently raised to a contractor in November 2019, only for that contractor to advise the landlord that it did not deal with underfloor heating.
Following an inspection in December 2019, the landlord received a report from its latest contractor that advised the resident’s underfloor heating system may not be repairable and alternative heating options should be considered. However, after receiving that report, it took the landlord another eleven months to finally provide the resident with adequate heating, completing its repairs in November 2020. While this Service acknowledges that the onset of complications caused by the coronavirus pandemic caused some delays from March 2020 onwards, particularly after the landlord had just identified a contractor who could deal with underfloor heating in March 2020, it is noted that this only accounts for some of the delay in resolving the issue and a year had already passed since it was initially aware of the problem with the resident’s heating. The landlord had initially inspected the issue in January 2019, meaning there was a period of 22 months from the landlord’s initial inspection until the final repair was completed. This meant that the resident was left without adequate heating in her property during several winter months between January 2019 and November 2020. It is also noted that the landlord could have been more proactive in resolving the issue once coronavirus restrictions began to lift from June 2020 onwards. While the landlord contacted the resident in July 2020 to advise that it was resuming ‘non-critical works’, internal landlord correspondence from March 2020 noted that ‘loss of heating is part of (our) critical works list’. It is noted that, following this email, there is no record of what, if any, action the landlord considered regarding a repair that it had identified as being critical. There is also insufficient evidence to suggest that it prioritised the work following the easing of restrictions.
The landlord makes clear in its Repair Responsibilities Handbook that it is responsible for making sure ‘the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order’ and that it will ‘repair…your heating system if it breaks down’. However, in this case, it did not do so in a timely fashion. Indeed, it took over a year to successfully identify a contractor who could resolve the issue. The resident was also caused avoidable disruption and inconvenience as a result of the landlord, or contractors working on its behalf, attending her property on a number of occasions without resolving the issue. During the time taken to investigate and eventually restore the resident’s heating, the landlord also did not provide the resident with regular updates, causing the resident to take time and trouble in contacting it to chase its progress.
While the landlord acknowledged in its Stage One complaint response that, between January and December 2019, it was at fault in re-raising several jobs to a contractor who had already advised they could not deal with the underfloor heating, this raised concerns over how it responded to the report and managed progress of the repair. As referred to in Paragraph 29, the landlord had, as early as February 2019, already noted in its repair logs that its initial contractor had advised it could not deal with the underfloor heating. However, it then took over a year, after a number of failed attempts, to source one that could. While this Service notes that the landlord referred to difficulties in identifying the kind of underfloor heating system that was installed in the resident’s property and difficulties in finding a suitable contractor who could carry out any repair, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this still amounts to a significant, and avoidable, delay.
Landlord records also show that, having identified a contractor who could resolve the issue, and after arranging for them to inspect the property in August 2020, there was a further delay in completing the repair. At least some of this delay was acknowledged by the landlord in correspondence with the resident, and it advised that it was caused by its internal accounting processes. While this Service acknowledges the need for landlords to have accurate procedures regarding work carried out by contractors, records show it took almost two months to resolve the issue of approving the contractor on its internal systems. Considering the already lengthy delay in carrying out the repair, the Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord expedite the process where possible and to be more flexible in its approach to enable the contractor to attend and complete the repair as quickly as possible.
Regarding the landlord’s award of compensation to the resident relating to its handling of the repair to her underfloor heating system, in its Stage One response, the landlord made an offer that totalled £2,400. This was made up of an award of £500 for the resident’s ‘inconvenience’, £500 for her ‘distress’ and £1,400 for the resident’s lack of heating during winter months (which it calculated as being 240 days at £5 per day). This is in line with what this Service would expect to see in terms and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in recognition of the landlord’s failings in the handling of the repair.
In her complaint escalation request, the resident indicated that she felt the offer of compensation should be increased. While she did not suggest a specific amount, she did indicate she believed it should be increased to a level that would allow her to be awarded £2,400 directly while also covering her rent arrears. From the information available to this investigation, this Service is not aware of the current amount the resident owes in rent arrears, so it is not clear how much additional compensation award the landlord would have need to make to also cover the money owed to it by the resident.
However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was clearly designed to address the substantive issue, which was its delay in responding to, and repairing, the resident’s heating. While this Service understands the resident’s frustration over the delayed repair, and it is noted that she advised the landlord in January 2020 that she had stopped paying rent due to its ongoing failure to restore her heating, under the terms of her tenancy agreement, she did still have a responsibility to pay her rent. The arrears therefore did not accumulate through any service failure by the landlord, but rather by the resident’s decision to begin withholding her rent.
The landlord’s offer of compensation did indicate that it had considered the effect of the delayed repair on the resident and offered apologies to her in its complaint responses and at various other times during correspondence with her. As above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer made was reasonable redress for the inconvenience caused.
In its Stage Two response, the landlord also demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s request that she be paid the compensation offered directly, rather than having it offset against her rent account. In its response, it acknowledged that, as her rent was paid by Universal Credit which pays four weeks in arrears, four weeks’ worth of her arrears were not her responsibility. It awarded her the equivalent of four weeks’ rent and service charges to her directly (£612.16).

The landlord’s decision to offset some of the compensation awarded to the resident against her rent arrears.

In its Stage One response, the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident. Totalling £2,400, the landlord advised that it would offset this against the resident’s existing rent arrears. The resident challenged this and stated that she expected the amount to be paid to her directly, or for the amount to be increased so it also covered her rent arrears.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement and Compensation Policy both state it will ‘partly or fully’ offset a compensation payment…against any debt owed to us by the customer, including rent arrears’ and the landlord was consistent in adhering to its policies. However, the landlord also demonstrated that it was willing to consider the resident’s request in its Stage Two review, and, in its response, it acknowledged that four weeks of her rent arrears were caused by Universal Credit making payments in arrears. Based on this, it confirmed that, at its discretion, it agreed to award the equivalent of four weeks’ rent to the resident directly.
While this Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration with the delayed repair, the landlord’s approach to offset the remainder of its compensation award against the existing rent arrears was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable position for it to take. The resident’s rent arrears were caused by her own decision to withhold rent in protest at the way the repair to her underfloor heating was being handled by the landlord, rather than by any error or failure by the landlord in managing her rent account. The Ombudsman acknowledges that landlords will often seek to offset compensation awards against debt owed and, in this case, the landlord acted in accordance with its stated policies and communicated its decision consistently. It also demonstrated it was prepared to be flexible when it considered the resident’s request for the compensation to be paid to her directly.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Although this Service has not seen the resident’s original complaint, landlord records confirm that it acknowledged receipt of a complaint from the resident on 29 November 2019. Its Complaints Policy states that it responds to complaints promptly and seeks to establish an Action Plan with the resident regarding any outstanding issues within 10 working days.
However, the landlord did not issue its Stage One response until 30 November 2020. Records show that, during this period, the resident chased it repeatedly for a response. While it is acknowledged that, in correspondence with the resident, the landlord apologised for a delay in issuing its response, it variously advised that it had not yet done so because it was waiting for the repair to be resolved and that it would issue a response once it had calculated an offer of compensation for the delayed repair. This was not in line with its policies, which do not state that outstanding issues need to be resolved before it will finalise a complaint response. At the time of the resident’s complaint, there had already been a period of around 10 months since the landlord became aware of the issue, which was the original source of her complaint. By not issuing a response until twelve months later, the landlord did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns regarding the original repair delay. It also meant the landlord appeared to focus on arriving at a suitable level of financial redress rather than responding to the central issue of the complaint. It did not process the complaint in a timely fashion via its internal procedures and therefore missed an opportunity to properly acknowledge its failure relating to the repair or to treat the resident fairly and try to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Whilst the financial and compensation side of the issues was clearly relevant, this Service would also expect to see that the landlord demonstrated it had fully investigated the reasons for the delayed repair and offered its evidence-based position in respect of the repair issues raised. By issuing the Stage One complaint response a full year later, the landlord also denied the resident the right to escalate her complaint for a significant period and meant that she took time and trouble to chase a response on several occasions over an extended period of time.
Having received its Stage One response, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. Although the landlord acknowledged this request the same day, it delayed in issuing its Stage Two response, providing this to the resident 39 working days outside of its target. While this was not in accordance with its complaints policy, which states responses should be issued within 10 working days, this was not a significant delay. However, it is noted that the landlord used the Stage Two response to take the opportunity to acknowledge the delay, leading it to both apologise to the resident and award her an additional £50 in compensation. However, the landlord does not appear to have considered offering compensation for the far greater delay in issuing its Stage One response, one full year, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was likely to have had a more significant impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s underfloor heating system and its subsequent offer of compensation.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s decision to offset some of the compensation awarded to the resident against her rent arrears.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s underfloor heating system and its subsequent offer of compensation.

The landlord was aware of problems with the resident’s underfloor heating as early as January 2019. After initially responding promptly and arranging an inspection it was advised that a specialist was required to investigate further. However, the landlord proceeded to arrange further inspections and raise orders to contractors who were not able to manage the repair. The landlord finally identified an appropriate contractor in March 2020, over a year later. This was a significant delay and raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping and its processes for engaging contractors to assist with non-standard repairs. The delay caused the resident detriment and meant she was without adequate heating during winter months in 2019 and early 2020.
Having identified a contractor who could assist with the repair, this Service acknowledges that Covid-19 restrictions caused a further delay with regards to them attending the resident’s property and that the contractor notified it that it would effectively close down for three weeks from March 2020. The Ombudsman also appreciates that landlords will likely have had repair backlogs as a result of the pandemic and therefore needed to prioritise urgent repairs. However, it is noted that the landlord had already identified the resident’s underfloor heating issue as being a ‘critical’ repair in internal correspondence from March 2020, although in communication with the resident in July 2020 it advised her that it was contacting her now it was re-starting ‘non-critical’ repairs that had been raised prior to the pandemic restrictions and would update her when the contractor was able to attend her property. However, landlord records indicate it did not do so, leading the resident to contact it again in August 2020 to chase it for an update. This highlights a lack of consistency in the landlord’s approach to the repair issue and poor general communication with the resident.
Regarding the compensation offered by the landlord in its Stage One response, it offered the resident a total of £2,400. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the award of £500 for the distress and £500 for the inconvenience experienced by the resident following the landlord’s delayed repair are in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and with what this Service would expect to see. The landlord demonstrated it understood the impact the delay had had on the resident and tried to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Taken altogether, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable redress in recognition of its failings in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the underfloor heating.
The landlord demonstrated it considered the resident’s request to increase the amount of compensation offered, but its decision to not do so was in line with its policies. The compensation offered by the landlord in its Stage One response was an appropriate attempt to address the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint, which was the delayed repair to her heating. The resident’s rent arrears began accruing following her decision to withhold rent. There was therefore no obligation on the landlord to increase its compensation offer to effectively write-off those arrears as the resident still had an obligation to pay rent under the conditions of her tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s decision to offset some of the compensation awarded to the resident against her rent arrears.

In its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord demonstrated it had acknowledged and fairly considered the resident’s request to be paid the compensation offered directly, rather than for the sum to be offset against her rent arrears. It declined to do so, outlining its position and appropriately referring to its Compensation Policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take and this Service accepts that landlords will offset compensation awards against money owed when this is laid out in their policies.
However, it is noted that the landlord, after considering her request, did agree to pay the equivalent of four weeks’ worth of rent direct to the resident, acknowledging that as Universal Credit paid her rent in arrears, four weeks’ worth of the rent arrears were not her direct responsibility. In the Ombudsman’s experience this is beyond what we would expect to see in these circumstances and demonstrates that the landlord was attempting to treat the resident fairly and put things right by exercising its discretion and taking a flexible approach to the compensation award.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that, if issues cannot be rectified immediately, it will provide the resident with an action plan within 10 working days. However, the landlord did not do this. After registering her complaint in November 2019, the landlord did not provide the resident with a Stage One response until November 2020, a full year later. This was a significant delay and was not appropriate. The response from the landlord was not reasonable and meant that it did not appropriately deal with the resident’s concerns, which at the time of her complaint, were relating to the original delay in attending to the heating repair from January 2019 to November 2019.
After acknowledging her complaint, the resident had to chase it for a response on several occasions. While it is noted that, in general correspondence with the resident, the landlord did apologise for the delay in providing a Stage One response and eventually advised her that it would be issued once the heating repair had been completed and it had calculated how much compensation it would offer her, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an appropriate response. By taking this approach, which was not in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which was published after the events set out in this report), the landlord did not appropriately address the substantive issue of the resident’s original complaint. It also denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint for a full year. This was to the detriment of the resident and meant the landlord did not treat her fairly. It resulted in her taking time and trouble to chase a response on several occasions over an extended period.
Its failure to issue a timely complaint response also meant the landlord missed an opportunity to fully investigate, and acknowledge, the reasons for the initial failure in responding appropriately to the repair. This also meant it was not able to try and put things right at an earlier stage and did not follow fair process, contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Having belatedly issued its Stage One response, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. Although the landlord acknowledged this request the same day, it then delayed in issuing its Stage Two response, providing this to the resident 29 working days outside of its target. While this was not in accordance with its Policy, it did acknowledge the delay and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offered reasonable redress for this via an award of compensation.
However, having awarded the resident compensation for a relatively short delay in issuing its Stage Two response, the landlord was inconsistent in its approach when it failed to appropriately acknowledge the more significant delay in issuing its Stage One response which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion would have caused the resident greater detriment. In this case, the landlord did not take a consistent approach in how it acknowledged, and sought to address, failures in its complaint handling. Having decided to compensate the resident for the relatively short delay in issuing a complaint response at Stage Two, this Service would have expected the landlord to acknowledge the more significant delay in issuing its Stage One response and consider compensating the resident an amount that reflected those circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Re-offer the original £2,450 compensation awarded to the resident following the completion of its complaint process.
2. Pay the resident an additional £350 for the delay in issuing its Stage One complaint response.

Recommendations

The landlord should make all relevant staff aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure they are responding to complaints in line with it.