London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202343685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343685

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. responsive repairs.
2. anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom property in sheltered accommodation. She has a tenancy agreement dated July 2023. The landlord is a housing association and manages the sheltered accommodation. The landlord is aware the resident has vulnerabilities and requires additional care and support.
The landlord completed 8 repairs to the cooker, electrics, bathroom and intercom in July and August 2023. Between September and November 2023, the landlord completed responsive repairs to the front door 3 times, toilet cistern twice, bedroom floor and shower.
The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord in Autumn 2023. The landlord and resident met on 1 November 2023 to discuss her housing issues. The landlord responded to the councillor on 7 November 2023. It said:
1. it had eased the jammed radiator pins and ordered its contractor to address the uneven floor in the bathroom and bedroom.
2. it gave details of actions it had taken after ASB reports.
3. it had not received allegations of constant fights. It had staff on site 2-3 days per week, and they had not witnessed incidents. If the resident shared specific times and dates it would look at CCTV.
4. it offered alternative accommodation options, responded to her concerns about water quality and the condition of the kitchen.
The resident continued to report ASB and responsive repairs in November 2023. She made a complaint on 1 December 2023. She said she felt the landlord had discriminated against her as they had not considered her health, history and religion when offering her alternative accommodation and repair solutions. She wanted the issues to be resolved and compensation for the mental and physical impacts. She reported:
1. brown and coloured water. There was also low water pressure.
2. she was unable to use the taps due to her health conditions.
3. uneven and uninsulated bedroom flooring, a broken doorbell, the heating was not working and mould in the cupboards.
4. a strong smell from the laundry room.
5. ASB, including neighbours smoking in the building, other residents trying to open her letter box to see her and items thrown at her windows.
6. she had been attacked in the laundry room. This had caused a blackeye and bleeding.
7. the property was dirty when she moved in.
The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. It apologised for inadequate support when the resident raised issues and offered £150 compensation for distress, inconvenience due to failure to recognise the impact of the complaint on her vulnerabilities, and time and effort. It said:
1. it would attend and assess the resident’s water pressure.
2. it had repaired the doorbell on 2 December 2023.
3. it would conduct a damp and mould assessment. The resident’s complaint was the first report of damp and mould it had received.
4. the radiators had individual controls. It had previously confirmed the individual controls were working.
5. it had assessed the resident’s report of laundry smells. There was a faint smell of detergent, but ventilation was sufficient. It had not received other complaints about this issue.
6. it had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and spoken to the neighbour in line with its policy. The neighbour had denied allegations of smoking and inappropriate visitors.
7. the resident had reported the alleged assault to the police. It could not share CCTV directly with the resident but would share with the police if requested.
8. it signposted her to rehousing supporting.
On 17 December 2023 the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said it had not recognised the impact of a strong drug smell on her health. On 19 and 23 December 2023 the landlord attended and completed works to solve the water pressure issues.
The landlord gave 2 additional stage 1 complaint responses on:
1. 28 December 2023. It linked this to the response on 15 December 2023. It said it had investigated and there was only a faint laundry smell. It had visited the neighbour and did not smell anything.
2. 4 January 2024. It apologised for poor communication. It repeated previously shared information about the actions it had taken to resolve the ASB and said it would provide the resident with an ASB diary.
The resident recorded smell and noise in the ASB diary in January 2024. The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s heaters on 10 January 2024. On 11 January 2024 the resident said she wanted to make a stage 2 complaint. She wanted the following issues resolved and compensation to recognise the hardship caused. She said:
1. the ASB was not resolved. She had not been given the details of the ASB investigation and had not been told when the landlord visited. She said the drug smell was impacting her health.
2. the water pressure issue in the kitchen had been resolved. However, the shower pressure was still faint. The taps in the bathroom still needed to be replaced.
3. the doorbell had been fixed, but now the intercom did not work.
4. she was unhappy with how long it took to fix the heating issues.
5. the smell of the detergent from the laundry room was still strong. The window was not open, and ventilation was therefore not appropriate.
6. she did not raise the water condition in her stage 2 escalation.
Between 26 January and 19 February 2024, the landlord completed 4 repairs to the heaters, water pressure and bathroom. The resident reported ASB twice in January and February 2024. On 17 February 2024 she said there had been no heating, dirty water and pending repairs for 7 months. On 23 February 2024 the landlord responded to her ASB reports setting out the actions it had taken and repeating previously shared information.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 March 2024. We asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response. The landlord responded on 15 May 2024. It said:
1. it had thoroughly investigated the ASB complaints, and her housing officer would update if there were any new updates.
2. its records showed there were no outstanding repairs. It asked her to report any new or incomplete issues.
3. it apologised for the delay in stage 2 complaint response.
4. it increased its offer of compensation to £340. This included £120 for its failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities, £120 for time and effort and £100 for the delay in stage 2 response.
In June 2024, the landlord completed related repairs to the floor in the bathroom and the radiator. The resident continued to report issues with the water, damp and mould, ASB, heating and the smell of the laundry. In September 2025, she told this Service the bathroom issues had been resolved, but she had not had heating for 2 years, there was mould and the water was still running brown. She was unhappy with the solutions offered by the landlord. To resolve the complaint, she wanted to permanently move to a more suitable home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said she believes the property was not suitable for occupation at the start of the tenancy and the water is often yellow. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. This investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 11 January 2024. Any issues that have not been subject to the full formal complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed if needed.
The resident has said she wants to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord and local authorities allocates its social housing is governed by statutory obligations and allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. This Service is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the ASB complained of took place in the way the resident stated. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place. This is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered whether the landlord had regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. ensuring that the landlord can easily interrogate databases, and that data can be extracted when needed.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of responsive repairs.

Policies and procedures

The EA provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics, including disability, from unfair treatment. Part 11 of the EA created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours, such as discrimination, which are prohibited under the EA.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend within 24 hours when there is an immediate danger. Repair works may make safe and lower the immediate risk, with follow on repairs required.
2. aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for communal areas, door entry systems, water supply, fixtures for water, heating and blocked radiators and faulty thermostats. It is also responsible for minor aids and adaptations.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy states it will make service adjustments for vulnerable residents. This includes priority repairs for health and safety repairs. The landlord’s internal communication from 7 December 2023 recorded as the resident’s property was sheltered accommodation, all repairs logged were treated as a priority.

Communication with onsite staff

The resident said she directly reported repairs to the Housing Officers who were regularly on site as part of the landlord’s sheltered housing scheme. The landlord has not provided records of the support provided to the resident by its onsite staff. It is therefore not possible to assess the landlord’s response to all reports. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s letting team said it had recorded several housing issues the resident raised in person on 1 November 2023. The landlord did not provide this evidence to this Service. This was a record keeping failure.

Mixer taps

During the visit on 27 July 2023, the landlord identified the bathroom taps needed to be changed to a mixer tap. Although this was marked as complete on the same day, subsequent records show this was not completed on this date. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord installed kitchen mixer taps on 23 November 2023. It is unclear when it first became aware of the need to change the kitchen taps. It is therefore not possible to assess if its actions were reasonable.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said she was unable to use separate taps due to her disability. The landlord changed the bathroom sink and taps on 31 January 2024. This was a failure when assessed against its repairs and vulnerability policies.

Water pressure

The landlord recorded a completed repair to the hot water pressure on 11 August 2023. Records are dated incorrectly, and it is therefore not possible to assess when this was reported. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord cancelled a repair to assess the low shower pressure on 7 October 2023. From the evidence provided it is not possible to assess why this was cancelled or communication with the resident about the issue. This was a record keeping failure.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord told the resident’s local councillor it had attended on 26 July 2023 and checked the water pressure. It had found the water pressure and temperature were fine. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it was reasonable for the landlord to assess the water pressure again. The landlord inspected on 23 November 2023 and recorded there was a communal issue with the water pressure fluctuating.
The resident reported the water pressure issue again in the stage 1 complaint on 5 December 2023 and the landlord investigated on 23 December 2023. She said the issue continued in her stage 2 escalation on 11 January 2023 and in its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024 the landlord said there were no outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s records show it took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports, such as inspecting the water pressure and identifying it was a wider block issue. However, the landlord did not demonstrate it sought to understand the impact of the fluctuating water pressure on the resident’s vulnerabilities, nor did it update the resident on the results of the inspection. It did not provide her with an explanation of the issue and why it did not consider further action necessary. This likely increased the resident’s distress and contributed to her continuing to raise the issue.

Heating issues

The landlord recorded the whole property was extremely hot on 12 October 2023. It marked an associated repair complete on 13 October 2023. This was within its repairs policy timeframe.
The landlord told the resident and local councillor it had attended on 27 October 2023 and eased jammed radiator pins. This is not possible to assess as evidence was not provided to this Service. This was a record keeping failure.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said she could not set the heating from the flat. As a result, it was either too cold or too hot. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had confirmed the radiator controls were operational and asked her to contact them if she could not adjust. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to check she understood how the radiator controls worked and if she were able to use them. In failing to do so, it did not have regard to its obligations under the EA.
A repair for the bathroom heater was cancelled on 5 January 2024. From the evidence provided it is not possible to assess why this was cancelled or communication with the resident about the issue. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord raised a repair for the living room and bedroom heaters on 8 January 2024. The landlord completed this repair on 10 January 2024. It is unclear if the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to this report. This was not in line with the landlord’s vulnerability policy and was outside of the timeframe in the repairs policy.
The landlord recorded the living room and bedroom heaters as not working on 29 January 2024. The landlord completed a repair on the same day. This was reasonable when assessed against its policies.

Doorbell and intercom system

The landlord raised 2 repairs for the resident’s front door alarm on 14 and 15 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat these as priority repairs, and it completed them within its policy timeframe.
The landlord recorded issues with the alarm and intercom system on:
1. 30 October 2023. This repair was completed on 2 November 2023.
2. 7 November 2023, when the resident said she could not hear the telecom or give people access to the building. This repair was completed on 14 November 2023.
3. The 2 day and 6-day delay to repairs were unreasonable when assessed against the priority repairs timeframe.
In its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023, the landlord stated the intercom had been repaired on 2 December 2023. This was not recorded in the landlord’s repairs log. This was a record keeping failure.
The resident reported the intercom was not working on 11 January 2024. The landlord marked a repair to the doorbell complete on 11 April 2024. The landlord did not complete repairs within its policy timeframe and failed to keep clear records on the works completed.
The landlord did not demonstrate it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or care needs when assessing repairs to the doorbell and intercom system. For example, by arranging an alternative way for the resident’s visitors to enter the building. The landlord did not show it gave regard to its obligations under the EA.

Detergent smell in communal area

The landlord first recorded the resident raising the smell of the laundrette on 1 December 2023. It is unclear if the resident raised this in her meeting with the landlord on 1 November 2023. The landlord investigated this issue in December 2023. It confirmed there was a faint laundry smell, but it assessed the ventilation as sufficient. It followed this up on 28 December 2023 and said it would take no further action. This was reasonable when assessed against its repairs and vulnerability policies.

Summary

In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the distress the resident had experienced and offered her £150 compensation at stage 1 and £120 compensation at stage 2. This compensation recognised some of the distress and inconvenience and its failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. The stage 1 response was a reasonable attempt at being fair and putting things right for the resident. However, this approach was not followed in the resident escalation and subsequent multiple complaint responses. Had it done this, the resident may not have felt it necessary to escalate her complaint.
In conclusion, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of responsive repairs. This is because of:
1. record keeping failures.
2. a delay of 6 months in changing the bathroom taps to mixer taps.
3. not explaining to the resident why it did not consider further action on the water pressure necessary.
4. a failure to consider its obligations under the Equality Act with regards to the radiator controls and mixer taps.
5. a delay of 1 day in repairing the heaters in January 2024.
6. delays of 2 and 6 days in repairing the alarm and intercom system in November 2023.
7. a delay to repairing the intercom system between 11 January and 11 April 2024.
The resident said the impact of the failings, and specifically the delays, contributed to her distress and caused her time and trouble. While the landlord acknowledged some failures in its complaint responses and offered financial compensation, it did not apologise for all failures identified in this report.
Considering the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £280 to recognise the likely distress caused by the failures identified above. We have also made orders to ensure the resident can use the heating.

The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as:
1. ‘Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.’
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. it will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalated. This may involve working with partner agencies.
2. it will prevent ASB by carrying out inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues and maintain and manage communal areas to minimise crime and ASB.
3. it categorises ASB into 2 categories, high priority and standard priority. In all high priority cases it will complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take. High priority cases will be logged and assessed within 1 working day by a case manager. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days.
4. harassment or intimidation, including threats, drug or substance misuse, alcohol related incidents and the misuse of common areas where it was persistent will be recorded as ASB.
5. it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party.
6. it will provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies and empowering the reporting party to take positive action, for example support to gather evidence.
7. it will agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It will update the action plan to reflect new information or new incidents related to the case. The action plan will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
The landlord’s ASB policy says in cases of serious crime, it will usually require the complainant to report the incident to the police before it can take further action.
The resident has said she directly reported ASB to the Housing Officers who were on site as part of the landlord’s sheltered housing scheme. The landlord has not provided records of the support provided to the resident by its onsite staff. It is therefore not possible to assess the landlord’s response to all reports. This was a record keeping failure.
The resident’s councillor reported ASB prior to 7 November 2023. The landlord appropriately shared information on actions it was taking. However, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy, and a case manager did not log and assess this within 3 working days. This was a failure when assessed against its policy.
The resident said the “smell of weed” was impacting her health on 26 and 28 November 2023. On 1 December 2023, she reported the “smell of weed”, items thrown at her window, other resident’s trying to look in her letterbox and being attacked in the laundrette. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 5 December 2023 but was unable to get through. It sent a follow up email on 7 December 2023. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord assessing the case within 3 working days and contacting the resident when assessed against its ASB policy.
The landlord took action to address the reported ASB, but it did not disclose all the measures it took due to confidentiality obligations it had to the resident’s neighbour. This was in keeping with its ASB and hate crime policy which says it will keep customers informed about its actions, taking into consideration the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
We must also protect this confidential information and therefore some aspects of our investigation are brief or omitted from this report. Our determination and findings are based on the investigations of this confidential information, but we cannot disclose all findings in this report.
The landlord did not follow its ASB policy and procedure by categorising these reports. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the allegation of a physical assault it would have been reasonable for the landlord to categorise the ASB into high priority. The landlord did not follow the first stage of its ASB procedure and did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment with the resident. Linked to this, the landlord did not investigate the resident’s allegation of people looking through her letterbox or throwing things at her window. This was not appropriate and was a failure when assessed against its ASB policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response set out an action plan of ASB next steps and shared appropriate information with the resident in line with its ASB policy. This was outside of its ASB policy but was a reasonable step to inform the resident.
The resident reported her health had been triggered by drug smoke on 17 December 2023. The landlord investigated and responded on 28 December 2023 and 4 January 2024. It provided the resident with a fortnightly ASB diary which she used throughout January 2024. This was appropriate.
In January 2024 a senior member of staff took over some communication with the resident. This communication states the resident was in regular contact with onsite staff between October 2023 and February 2024. However, no evidence of this was provided. This was a record keeping failure.
On 6 March 2024 the landlord attended to fill gaps in the property where smoke may be entering. However, it did not do any work. From the evidence provided, it is unclear if the landlord assessed that work was unnecessary. This record keeping failure likely increased internal confusion and added to the landlord’s difficulty in identifying necessary works.
In summary, while the landlord took some steps to update the resident appropriately and take actions, it failed to complete a vulnerability risk assessment and delayed contacting the resident after her reports on 27 November and 1 December 2023. It also demonstrated poor record keeping at various points. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not recognise its failings nor take steps to put things right.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because of:
1. record keeping failures.
2. a failure to directly contact the resident when the local councillor contacted it.
3. a delay of 3 working days in assessing and responding to the resident’s report on 1 December 2023.
4. a failure to complete a vulnerability risk assessment.
5. a failure to investigate the resident’s reports of people looking through her letterbox or throwing things at her window.
6. a failure to communicate about the appointment on 6 March 2024.
7. a failure to identify mistakes in its internal complaint process and take steps to put things right.
Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, our remedies guidance allows for such financial remedy where we have found maladministration and there has been a significant impact on the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise her likely distress and inconvenience. We have also made orders to review its onsite record keeping and to complete a vulnerability risk assessment.

The associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy said it would accept complaints via representatives or advocates. The landlord’s policy stated stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
The resident complained on 1 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 13 December 2023, which was not in line with complaints policy. However, it responded within 10 working days on 15 December 2023.
The landlord’s policy was that stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a final written response provided within 20 working days. The resident said she was unhappy with the complaint response on 17 December 2023. The landlord issued a follow up to the stage 1 response on 28 December 2023. It said it had already decided the stage 1 complaint and did not escalate the complaint. This was a barrier and was unreasonable.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 4 January 2024. This did not address the responsive repairs but did investigate the ASB complaints raised and responded to previously. It is unclear why the landlord treated this as a new complaint. This could have caused confusion and prevented the resident from escalating her complaint.
The resident escalated their complaint again on 11 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on the same day. It said it was experiencing a delay but did not communicate the timescale to the resident. This was a failure when assessed against the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord issued an acknowledgement for a third stage 1 on 26 January 2024. It is unclear why this was treated as a separate complaint as it addressed the same issues previously raised. This was a failure when assessed against the landlord’s policy. It said it would issue a response by 2 February 2024, which it failed to do so.
The resident chased the landlord for the stage 2 response on 19 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this and asked the resident to confirm if she wanted to cancel or escalate the complaint. This obstructive process likely caused the resident time and trouble. The delay to provide the stage 2 response to the resident caused her distress and inconvenience, as she chased the landlord about it and referred the complaint to us in April 2024.
This Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 9 April 2024. The landlord gave a third stage 2 acknowledgement on 11 April 2024. The landlord made attempts to speak to the resident to understand the complaint and the outcomes she wanted. This was positive and showed it was taking steps to put things right.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024. This was 5 months after the resident said she was unhappy with the first stage 1 response and 4 months after the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation in January 2024. The resident was unreasonably delayed in receiving a response to the issues they raised and in bringing their complaint to this Service for investigation. The landlord did apologise for the 5-month delay and offered reasonable redress of £100 for the delay. However, it did not recognise its obstructive process or the unnecessary opening of new complaints.
The landlord recognised the time and effort to resolve the complaint and offered £120 compensation to the resident for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. It also offered £100 for 5 months delay in stage 2 response.
However the landlord had not considered the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to:
1. the additional responses to the resident at stage 1.
2. the lack of an extension request and timeframe to send the stage 2 complaint response.
3. failure to escalate the complaint when the resident contacted it after its response to the councillor and after its stage 1 response on 17 December 2023.
We have found maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint for the reasons outlined above. The landlord’s offer of £220 went some way some way to putting things right, however it did not take account of the issues outlined above. Considering the landlord’s complaint policy and our remedies guidance, the landlord should apologise to the resident and pay the resident a further £80.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of responsive repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £860 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £280 to recognise the likely distress caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of responsive repairs.
  2. £500 to recognise the likely distress caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports.
  3. £80 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. pay the resident the £150 offered at stage 1 and £120 offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so.
4. contact the resident and assess if she can use the individual radiator controls. This should include checking if the heating is working properly. It should also assess if there are any reasonable adjustments that would make it easier for the resident to use the individual radiator controls. A written summary of this should be provided to the resident and this Service.
5. review its sheltered accommodation communication records to ensure the landlord’s complaints team can access these if necessary. A written summary of this review should be provided to this Service.
6. write to the resident and this Service to confirm if there are any gaps in the flooring which need to be addressed.
7. consider its ASB policy and the resident’s continued reports of ASB. It should:
  1. complete a vulnerability risk assessment for the resident. A copy of this should be provided to this Service.
  2. share a written ASB action plan with the resident and this Service.