London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202215121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215121

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of repairs to the resident’s property, specifically:
  1. Kitchen cupboards and drawers.
  2. Bathroom taps.
  3. Warped floorboards.
2. A report that the resident had been injured within her property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. She has lived at the property since April 2004. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware the resident has any vulnerabilities.
In 2020, the resident experienced a leak from the flat above, which affected her kitchen and bathroom. Due to COVID-19 measures in place at the time, the repairs were delayed. The resident reported the repairs to the landlord as outstanding on 31 January 2021. On 19 February 2022, she also reported to the landlord that her floorboards had warped causing damage to her flooring.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 July 2022 that the previously reported repairs remained outstanding and that she had been injured by a kitchen cupboard falling on her head. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day and provided dates for the repairs to take place to the bathroom and flooring. It stated the kitchen repairs were currently in a queue, and she would be contacted once a contractor had been allocated to complete the repairs. The landlord offered the resident a £50 voucher as a goodwill gesture.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 10 October 2022 due to the repairs not being completed. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 21 June 2023, the landlord offered the resident a total of £400 compensation for delays, time and effort, distress, and inconvenience. The landlord stated that repairs to the bathroom and flooring had been completed but did not mention the repairs to the kitchen.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service. She stated she would like the outstanding repairs to be completed and for the compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience she has experienced for a prolonged period of time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health as she suffers with asthma, anxiety and PTSD. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has also raised further repairs to the bathroom that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 21 June 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

Repairs to the kitchen

On 31 January 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she had repairs outstanding to the kitchen of her property. She said that following a leak from the flat above in 2020, her kitchen cupboards had become wet and mouldy, and the tiles were falling off the walls. The landlord replied on 2 February 2021 and stated that due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was only able to attend emergency repairs. However, it stated that it could arrange for a damp and mould contractor to attend if needed.
It is not clear from the documents provided when the kitchen repairs were first reported in 2020, however, given the COVID-19 restrictions in place during 2020 and 2021, it is reasonable that non-urgent repairs were not addressed sooner. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to kitchen fittings such as the cupboards. The landlord acknowledged this responsibility in its reply to the resident.
On 21 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs to her kitchen. She stated the wood was still wet, it had a damp smell to it, and she was finding mice in the kitchen. The landlord booked an appointment for the repairs to take place on 27 September 2021.
The Institute for Government’s timeline of COVID-19 measures shows that the UK went into its third national lockdown on 6 January 2021. By 12 April 2021, all non-essential services were reopened, with no further lockdowns from this point. The landlord’s COVID-19 policy does not cover how it operated after 12 April 2021. The landlord’s repair policy states a priority 4 repair (installation works) would be completed within 10 days. It is accepted that the landlord would have had a backlog of repairs to complete because of COVID-19 restrictions. However, it was unreasonable of the landlord to leave the resident waiting for almost 7 months with no update on her repair.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies domestic hygiene and food safety as potentially hazardous in a residential property. It states that the threat of the hazard can be increased by the presence of infestations such as mice. It also identifies damp and mould as a further hazard that can be a threat to health, especially to those with breathing difficulties such as asthma. It is not clear whether the landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions at this stage. However, given that her kitchen contained at least 3 potential hazards, and she had been living with those conditions since 2021, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to act quicker to get the repairs completed.
The repairs appointment was rescheduled on 4 occasions between September and November 2021. The landlord’s maintenance log states that one occasion was at the request of the resident and one occasion was due to the operative being on annual leave. It is unclear why the other two appointments were rearranged.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2022 to chase the kitchen repairs. The landlord informed her the request was in the major works queue. The resident contacted the landlord again 22 June 2023 to chase the repairs and was given the same update.
The resident made her formal complaint over the phone on 12 July 2022. Landlord records recorded a complaint about the kitchen cupboard falling from the wall and did not mention the delays to the repairs. The resident has told this Service that her complaint did include the kitchen repairs, and this was reiterated over the phone to the landlord the following day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2022. It thanked the resident for discussing the complaint over the phone earlier that day and noted that the kitchen repairs formed part of her complaint. This supports that the resident did complain about the repairs to the kitchen cupboards.
In its response, the landlord acknowledged that the kitchen repairs were currently in the major works queue and the resident would be contacted by a contractor once the works had been allocated. The landlord offered the resident £50 of vouchers as a goodwill gesture across all complaints. While the landlord apologised for the “trouble” it has caused the resident, it failed to acknowledge the resident had been without a suitable kitchen for at least 18 months, failed to offer any kind of timescale to manage the resident’s expectations, and failed to offer any additional support while her food preparation area was inadequate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 September 2022 to chase the repairs. The landlord again advised that the repairs were in the major works queue and no completion date was available. The resident’s own notes recorded that she escalated her complaint on 4 October 2022 as she was still waiting for a date for the kitchen repairs.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint. The landlord summarised the resident’s complaint as relating to carpentry and plumbing works, delays to repairs and appointment cancellations. The resident replied by email the same day and expressed her concern that the kitchen repairs were not specifically mentioned in the landlord’s correspondence. She reminded the landlord that the kitchen repairs were to be included in its response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023. The response set out a timeline of repairs that did not include those reported about the kitchen. While the response dealt with delays and missed appointments, these points related to other repairs and not the kitchen. This was a serious failing, as the resident had been without a suitable kitchen / food preparation area for over 29 months. The landlord’s lack of action caused the resident prolonged distress, damaged the landlord / tenant relationship, and delayed an effective solution being found for the resident.
The resident has told this Service that while some repairs took place to the kitchen after the stage 2 response was issued (October 2023), there are still minor repairs outstanding that the landlord has not addressed. She states that prior to the repairs being completed, she was unable to use the kitchen to cook meals due to its condition and incurred extra expenses from eating out and take aways.

Repairs to the bathroom

On 31 January 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she had repairs outstanding to the bathroom of her property. She stated that bathroom taps were not fit for purpose, and they were 20 years old. The landlord replied on 2 February 2021 and stated that due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was only able to attend emergency repairs.
Again, it is not clear from the documents provided when the bathroom repairs were first reported in 2020, but it is likely that COVID-19 restrictions would have caused delays as the repair was not an emergency. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to bathroom taps. The landlord acknowledged this responsibility in its reply to the resident.
On 12 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that her bathroom taps had still not been repaired and they were corroded and leaking. In its stage 1 complaint response the following day, the landlord confirmed it had booked an appointment for the repair to take place on 28 July 2022.
The landlord’s repair service level agreement states that a priority 3 repair (non-urgent) will be attended within 5 days and completed within 10 days (not including Sundays). The appointment was scheduled to be attended 14 days after the resident made her complaint. While this is only a minor deviation from its policy, it was unreasonable of the landlord to not have actioned the repair sooner, given it was made aware the repair was outstanding 18 months earlier. This was a further failing which added to the resident’s distress and reduced her ability to enjoy to her home.
The landlord attended the property on 28 July 2022 and noted that further work was needed to the bathroom, including:
1. Renew boxing in behind the toilet.
2. New basin and pedestal.
3. New bath.
The repairs were regarded to a priority 4 (installation works) and the works took place between 24 September and 4 October 2022. The landlord’s service level agreement allows 10 days for priority 4 works to be completed unless the materials take longer to obtain. The agreement also states that where delays occur, the resident must be kept informed of progress at all times. It was unreasonable of the landlord to expect the resident to wait over 2 months for the repairs to take place with no explanation as to why there was a delay.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 4 October 2022. She provided pictures of poor-quality repairs to the bathroom including a loose bath handle and gas in the sealant. The resident stated the taps had not been replaced, were corroded, and leaking, and a new basin had not been fitted. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 10 October 2022 and informed her that the sink and taps had been replaced on 6 October 2022 and it was the box behind the toilet that still required attention. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and stated the bathroom repairs had not been completed to that extent.
Landlord internal emails suggest that it was informed by its contractor that all repairs had been completed to the bathroom, except for the box behind the toilet. The landlord’s own repair records do not record what work had been completed. The landlord informed the resident on 27 October 2022 that it wanted to conduct a joint visit to the property, with the contractor, to conduct an inspection of the work carried out. On 21 November 2022, the resident was advised to address any outstanding issues with the landlord during that visit.
The inspection took place on 23 November 2022. However, the landlord did not attend the inspection, and the resident was not informed of this in advance. Landlord internal notes show that the landlord contacted the contractor by phone during the inspection and decided it would not replace the sink and only make repairs to the box behind the toilet. Given the complaints of poor-quality repairs, the delays already experienced, the disputes over whether the repairs had been completed, and the advice given to the resident on 21 November 2022, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to attend the inspection to provide oversight and assurance.
The landlord’s repair log shows that further repairs were carried out on 14 and/or 16 December 2022 and were marked as “works unsatisfactory”. It is not clear whether this comment referred to the new repairs or the existing state of the bathroom, or what repairs were indeed carried out.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023 and acknowledged that the resident’s complaint related to the bathroom repairs. The landlord stated the bath and sink were replaced on 24 September 2022, with further repairs being completed on 16 December 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the extent of the delays to repair the bathroom, or the fact that the resident had disputed the repairs were incomplete. It offered £400 compensation across all complaints as redress.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to state the basin had been replaced. This was because following the contractor’s inspection on 23 November 2022, its own records showed that the sink had not been replaced. The landlord subsequently decided it would not be carrying out the work. This misinformation further damaged the landlord / tenant relationship and left the resident feeling ignored and distressed.
The resident further queried the decision regarding providing her with new basin after the stage 2 response had been issued. It is unclear from the information provided, whether the landlord gave an update.

Repairs to the flooring

On 19 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the floorboards had warped, which caused large gaps between the planks and had damaged her flooring. She stated she had previously tried to rectify the issue herself, only for the problems to return 2 years later. The resident also told the landlord that the issue was affecting her breathing due to the cold air and mould that were coming from the void under the floor.
The resident called the landlord on 2 March 2022 to chase the repair. Following the call, the landlord gave the resident a date for the repair of 22 April 2022. The landlord stated that the resident was responsible for moving her furniture to allow the repairs to take place.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for repairing the floorboards in the property and confirms that the resident would be responsible for floor coverings in all rooms except the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s service level agreement for repairs states a priority 3 (non-urgent) repair will be attended within 5 days and the repair will be completed within 10 days (not including Sundays). The agreement also states that if additional time is needed to complete the repair, the resident must be kept informed of progress at all times.
It was unreasonable of the landlord not to action the resident’s initial repair request when it was first made, causing the resident to chase the issue. Upon being chased, the landlord failed to apply its service level agreement to the repair as the date scheduled for the repair to take place was 2 months after the issue had been reported. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was unable to replace her flooring in the bedroom, kitchen, and hallway, until the floorboards had been repaired.
The landlord cancelled the repair on 4 April 2022, without giving a reason or an alternative date. The resident chased the repair on 5 and 7 April 2022 and the landlord rebooked the appointment for 26 May 2022. The landlord attended the appointment and confirmed that the floorboards needed to be nailed down and covered with sheeting. The landlord advised the resident that her furniture would need to be removed from all affected rooms, and it booked a further appointment to complete the works for 18 July 2022. It was unreasonable of the landlord that 3 months had passed since the issue was reported and the only action undertaken by the landlord to resolve the issue by this point was an inspection.
The resident removed the floor coverings of the affected rooms and paid to have her personal belongings transported to a storage facility for the repairs to be carried out. She called the landlord on 12 July 2022 to check the appointment was still going ahead and was informed that it had been cancelled until 22 September 2022. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have informed the resident of the cancellation at an earlier stage given the preparation it had asked her to complete. It was also unreasonable that the repair had been delayed further when the resident was left with no floor coverings.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord the same day and stated that the gaps in flooring had caused a mice infestation to spread. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day and stated that the repair had already been rescheduled for 22 September 2022 and offered the resident £50 in vouchers across all aspects of her complaint. The response failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the additional expenses she had incurred. Nor did it acknowledge that the problem with mice had gotten worse.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2022 to confirm the appointment was going ahead. Once she received confirmation, the resident again paid for her personal belongings to be transported to a storage facility for the work to take place. On 22 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that no operative had attended to complete the repair. The landlord issued the resident a £20 voucher for the missed appointment but did not provide the resident with an explanation or further appointment.
At this point, the resident had been without flooring in the bedroom, living room, and hallway for 3 months, having removed it for the original repair appointment in July 2022. The weather was getting colder, and the resident had already informed the landlord that she had vulnerabilities in respect to her breathing and how the situation was impacting on them. The landlord’s response had deviated from its repairs policy, and it was not fulfilling its obligations to the resident. This was a significant failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2022, after receiving no updates from the landlord as to when the repairs would be completed. In its acknowledgement the same day, the landlord confirmed it was waiting for a date for the repair, and the infestation would be treated when the works to the floorboards were complete. The landlord attended the property on 17 October 2022 to carry out a further survey of the works needed. The landlord’s notes recorded that no repairs were required, but this was not communicated to the resident. This was a significant failing and error by the landlord as the floorboards were its responsibility.
Further landlord notes dated 25 October 2022, evidence there was some confusion around what was happening with the works to the floorboards. The notes stated that a surveyor had previously advised the work was needed. The resident contacted the landlord on 25, 26, and 28 October 2022 to chase the repair. Landlord notes from 30 October 2022 recorded that the work had been “suspended in error” and on 6 November 2022 the landlord marked the repairs as completed. This was disputed by the resident, who told this Service that the landlord did not complete any repairs to the floorboards.
The resident continued to chase the repairs on 10, 18, 23 November 2022, and 22 March 2023. From the documentation provided, the landlord did not act upon any of these requests. On 5 April 2023, the landlord recorded a further call from the resident regarding the issue. Landlord notes of that date identify the discrepancy between the 2 inspections carried out of the flooring at the resident’s property and commented the repairs remained outstanding and the resident was unaware that the job had been cancelled.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023. It acknowledged the complaint related to the delays to repairing the floorboards and the expense incurred by the resident in preparation for those repairs. The landlord stated that the flooring repairs had been completed on 6 November 2022 and offered a total of £400 compensation against all aspects of her complaint. It was inappropriate for the landlord to state the repairs to the floorboards had been completed when it acknowledged the repairs, which had been reported 16 months earlier, as outstanding in 2023.
The resident has told this Service that she had to pay £44 to hire a van and £80 for storage costs each time she moved her belongings. She also stated that she paid an additional £110.30 for the boarding required (as suggested by the first inspection) and £300 for the boarding to be fitted, to be able to replace her flooring.

Summary of repairs

Prior to the stage 2 response being issued the resident contacted the landlord and requested that all further contact with her be made in writing as she was no longer willing to discuss matters over the phone. This is indicative of the resident losing trust in the landlord and a serious breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs in line with its own repairs policy, and when this is not possible, within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
In this case, the resident experienced lengthy delays for all her repairs with little communication from the landlord in terms of the causes of those delays and how it was going to support her until the repairs could be carried out. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for any form of update, and even when these were received, they were often inaccurate or unhelpful.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £400 across all aspects of the resident’s complaint, made up of:
1. £100 for time and effort.
2. £150 for inconvenience.
3. £150 for distress.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which compensation payments may be applicable. These include distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as:
1. Where it fails to complete repairs within agreed response times and has not advised the resident of any exceptions.
2. Where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the resident has lived in poor conditions for longer than is reasonable.
3. Where the resident has had to pay for something due to its inaction or delay, including food costs if they had no cooking facilities.
4. Loss of room due to prolonged repairs.
Given the repeated failures to attend repairs in a timely manner, the lack of communication surrounding the delays, the failure to acknowledge service requests on multiple occasions, and the extra expenses incurred by the resident, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord told this Service it was not aware of the resident having any vulnerabilities. However, the evidence shows that the resident made the landlord aware of the following:
1. 19 February 2022 – She was considered vulnerable by virtue of her asthma and her nebuliser use had increased because of the cold air and mould in the property.
2. 10 November 2022 – She was housed by the landlord as vulnerable person and being in the presence of males she did not know aggravated her PTSD.
3. 16 December 2022 – Her asthma continued to be affected.
A landlord should maintain accurate records and ensure they are updated when new information is received. The landlord has also failed to record and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities as and when she disclosed them to it.
There was severe maladministration across all of the landlord’s handling of repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £6,527 compensation to the resident. This is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is made up of:
1. £2,186 (rounded up) compensation, which is equivalent to 10% rent for the loss of adequate kitchen facilities from 1 March 2021 to 20 October 2023 (10% of £106.35 = £15.95, x 137 weeks = £2,185.15).
2. £782 (rounded up) compensation, which is equivalent to 10% rent for poor living conditions once floor coverings were removed from 12 July 2022 to 21 June 2023 (10% of £106.35 = £15.95, x 49 weeks = £781.55
3. £248 for expenses incurred removing furniture on 2 occasions when the appoints were cancelled without notice or missed (£80 storage + £44 van hire x 2 = £248).
4. £411 (rounded up) to reimburse the resident for paying to have the floorboards repaired that the landlord was responsible for (£110.30 materials + £300 labour charge)
5. £2,900 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused in chasing outstanding repairs for a period of 29 months (January 2021 to June 2023).

The landlord’s handling of a report that the resident had been injured in her property

While the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on cases of personal injury, this Service can consider the landlord’s handling of the report and whether it acted in line with policies and procedures.
On 12 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that a kitchen cupboard had fallen from the wall and hit her on the head, resulting in her sustaining a concussion. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2022 but made no reference to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the circumstances which a complaint will not be dealt with, including liability claims. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will not be paid for personal injury claims as these are considered by its insurance company. While it was appropriate for the landlord not to deal with the report as a complaint, it was unreasonable of it not to inform the resident of the reasons why.
In its stage 2 response, dated 21 June 2023, the landlord referred to the report of injury. The landlord explained that it was unable to deal with the issue under its complaint procedure and it advised the resident how to take the matter up with its insurance company. While the advice given was in line with the landlord’s policies, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have given the advice 11 months earlier when the resident made her complaint. The delay prolonged the resolution to this particular issue and caused the resident to experience a further loss of confidence in the landlord.
Therefore, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of a report that the resident had been injured in her property. Its failure to pass relevant information to the resident at the relevant time delayed resolution to the issue. An order had been made for the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This amount is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 12 July 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day, which included a plan of action to address her concerns. The landlord’s complaint policy states a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days. This was a prompt response from the landlord, in line with its own policy.
The resident’s own notes suggest she tried to escalate her complaint on a number of occasions including 4 October 2022, but the landlord failed to acknowledge the request. The landlord’s internal documents suggest that the escalation was made on 10 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the same day and stated that she would be contacted further within the next 5 to 6 months.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the point of escalation. It also states that if it needs longer to reply, it will explain the reasons for this and make contact within a further 10 working days. The policy also states that in exceptional circumstances it may need even longer.
While the landlord went some way to try and manage the resident’s expectations by providing a timescale, it did not explain the reasons for the delay. Furthermore, a delay of 5 to 6 months was unreasonable given some of the repairs had already been outstanding for almost 2 years.
The resident chased her complaint on 5 April 2023. The landlord replied to her the same day and apologised for the delays caused. It said that it had experienced an increased demand for escalations since changes implemented in November 2020, which had caused the delays, and stated it would contact her further once her case had been allocated. While the update gave the resident a better idea of why her response was delayed, it is unlikely to have offered any solace given the number and total delays she had been subject to over an extensive period.
The landlord did not contact the resident until 8 June 2023, to inform her that her case had been allocated. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to provide the resident with further updates prior to this date, given its initial estimate of 5 to 6 months had elapsed in April.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023, more than 8 months after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord apologised for the delays experienced and offered the resident £100 compensation for its failures in complaint handling.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may be applicable to award compensation in circumstances where it has failed to respond to a complaint within an agreed time or has not complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy does not state how compensation is to be calculated. The Code states that a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days and if more time is needed, this should not exceed a further 10 working days and should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s delay in issuing its stage 2 response was unreasonable and its communication with the resident regarding her complaint during this delay was poor. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and maintain the landlord / tenant relationship. The delays caused the resident further distress and has further delayed a resolution to the issues she complained of. While the offer of compensation went some way to trying to put things right for the resident, it did not reflect the lengthy delay of 8 months.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the delays and distress caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a report the resident had been injured in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £6,777 compensation, made up of:
  1. £6,527 for its failures in handling reports of repairs.
  2. £50 for its failures in handling of a report the resident had been injured in her property.
  3. £200 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Conduct an inspection of the kitchen, produce a schedule of works required to address the outstanding service request, with associated timescales in which the repairs will be completed. Provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule.
4. Conduct an inspection of the bathroom, produce a schedule of works required to address the outstanding service request, with associated timescales in which the repairs will be completed. Provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule.
5. Ascertain whether the resident wishes to make a personal injury claim, and if so, assist her with the process, including liaison with its insurer to minimise any inconvenience and disruption for the resident.
6. Contact the resident to confirm her current vulnerabilities and ensure that its records are updated.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.