London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217416

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 May 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 concerns about cyclical decorations and outstanding repairs to her property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated December 1998. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident has said she is in poor physical health. The landlord has recorded that she has vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it raised a job to repair rotten beams on the roof of the resident’s property on 15 November 2022. It also raised a job to unblock guttering on 22 November 2022 which it completed on 6 December 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2023. It apologised for it not completing external cyclical decorations in her property. The landlord said it would update the resident about these works.
Between July and October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord 6 times. She said:
1. the landlord had not completed the cyclical decorations as promised and it had not updated her about this.
2. the landlord needed to replace the cast iron guttering it inspected in April 2023.
3. there had been a leak underneath her kitchen sink since 26 August 2023 and the landlord had missed appointments to repair this, it was not taking prompt action and some of the work completed was inadequate.
4. although she had decorated the inside of her property, there was a stained patch on her kitchen ceiling.
5. the landlord had ignored the structural defects in her property that she had reported. The resident said a surveyor who attended her property did not complete an inspection as she had recently decorated and covered the cracks in the walls.
Between July and October 2023, the landlord’s records show that:
1. it raised a repair for the broken guttering at the rear of the property on 29 August 2023 and completed this repair on 17 October 2023.
2. it completed an inspection of the cracks on the walls in the resident’s property on 30 August 2023.
3. it attended the resident’s property on 29 and 31 August and 1 September 2023 but was unable to repair the leak although it was containable. It also raised jobs to renew the kitchen base unit and remove the work top and gas hob under the same work number on 1 September 2023.
4. it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property to complete repairs in the kitchen on 13 and 16 October 2023. It rescheduled the appointment for 12 January 2023.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 October 2023. It apologised that the resident had cause to complain and outlined some of the action it had taken. The landlord said:
1. it sent a letter to the resident in June 2019 advising her that 7-year internal decorations would start in the tax year 2020/2021. There were no current plans to decorate the resident’s property internally.
2. it had contacted the surveyor who inspected the cracks in her property on 30 August 2023 to see if it needed to complete further repairs.
3. its contractor was due to erect scaffolding on 8 December 2023, and it had scheduled the repair to the roof for 12 December 2023 as an all-day appointment.
4. it had arranged an appointment for the following day for a plumber to return and look at the leak from the resident’s sink.
5. with regards to painting the kitchen ceiling, it was the resident’s responsibility to complete internal decorations.
6. regarding the resident’s request for a new kitchen, it offered a repairs service only and would only renew a kitchen if the current one was beyond a state of repair.
7. in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing repairs to the resident’s home, it offered £350 in compensation as a good will gesture.
8. in reaching this amount it had considered the length of time taken to resolve the roof repairs and the resident’s time and effort in contacting the landlord throughout.
Between November 2023 and March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions. She said the landlord had provided incorrect information in its complaint response as she was not requesting internal decorations. She provided an email from the landlord stating her property would be part of its external cyclical decorations for 2022/2023. She reiterated her concerns about repairs. This included the continuing leak in the kitchen, a stain on the kitchen ceiling and repairs to the roof and the guttering. She said the landlord’s contractor had missed an appointment on 6 February 2024 to inspect the roof.
Between November 2023 and March 2024, the landlord’s records show that:
1. it attended to the resident’s property to repair the leak in her kitchen on 1 November 2023.
2. it emailed the resident in November and December 2023 and told her to report the stain on the kitchen ceiling so a plumber could investigate. It also said it would provide an update on the cyclical decorations.
3. it erected scaffolding at the resident’s property on 8 December 2023.
4. it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 3 January 2024. It said it would raise a work order for someone to come and look at the resident’s kitchen sink as it was still leaking.
5. it wrote to the resident on 9 January 2024 and told her that its contractor would arrange an appointment to repoint the parapet wall on the roof. It said if it required intrusive work, it would need a party wall notice as the neighbour was a private homeowner. It contacted its contractor and asked it to attend to the job as soon as possible.
6. it replaced the leaking tap in the kitchen and completed the other repairs in the kitchen on 12 January 2024.
7. it emailed the resident on 13 and 22 February 2024 and apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and not responding sooner. It said it was liaising with the relevant teams to get dates for the repair works.
8. it completed repairs to the roof and replaced the guttering on the resident’s property on 27 February 2024.
9. it emailed the resident on 21 March 2024 regarding cyclical decorations. It told her it would assess the current condition of her property and subject to the result of this it would place her property onto the 2024/2025 or future planned investment programme. It said it programmed this it would confirm this in writing nearer the time.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. The landlord apologised that the resident remained dissatisfied and said:
1. it offered a repairs service and would only renew a kitchen if it was beyond a state of repair. Renewals were organised by the planned maintenance team who would contact residents to let them know if their property was on the renewals list.
2. it had booked the roof repair for 12 December 2023. The resident had told it that operatives had attended on that day but were unable to carry out any repairs as they stated the job was too big.
3. it was sorry that its contractor did not attend an appointment to inspect the roof on 6 February 2024. Its contractor had confirmed it had attended the resident’s property on 22 February 2024 and replaced a broken tile and the resident had emailed on 27 February 2024 and advised that the contractors had replaced the guttering.
4. its contractor had confirmed it had completed the work, but it had identified that the chimney was also in disrepair which required an extension to the scaffolding. It was awaiting a response from the planning team with an appointment to repair this.
5. the staff member who told the resident that it had included her property in cyclical decorations for 2022/2023 had left the organisation. It had not included cyclical decorations of the resident’s property in its 2023/2024 planned investment programme.
6. it had included the resident’s street in the 2024/2025 validation schedule for inspections which were due in the next few months. Once validated and the current condition assessed it would be able to advise the resident further.
7. it had raised repairs for a leaking tap in the kitchen and cracks in the bedroom and bathroom and it would monitor this until it had completed the work.
8. for the above reasons and in line with its compensation guidelines, it was making a total compensation payment of £470 inclusive of the amount offered at stage 1. This consisted of:
  1. £120 for the distress caused.
  2. £120 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £150 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  4. £20 for the missed appointment.
  5. £60 for the delay in responding at stage 2.

Events post-ICP (internal complaints procedure)

The landlord erected further scaffolding to repair the chimney on 11 April 2024. However, it removed all of the scaffolding on 29 May 2024 at the resident’s request. It repaired the leak on 20 June 2024 and the cracks in the resident’s property on 16 September 2024.
The resident has continued to raise concerns about the cyclical decorations and the outstanding repairs to the roof. In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and adequately compensate her for the stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord. These issues included not replacing all of the guttering, refitting her bathroom, faulty electrics, the main door, windows, a fence, the length of time the scaffolding was in place at her property, holes in her property, cracks on the pavement from the scaffolding and compensation from a previous complaint.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of action following a surveyor’s report in 2007. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from November 2022 onwards.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the issues in her property had impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. it aims to complete routine day to day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
3. it is responsible for leaking taps or pipes, plasterwork to internal walls and ceilings if they are severely crumbled or have cracks bigger than 5mm and all roofing repairs including guttering.
4. it does not decorate ceilings or external walls although it would complete the latter under a planned cyclical programme.
5. where age, and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens these will be replaced through planned programmes of work.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord would keep the exterior of the premises in a good state of decoration and normally decorate these areas every 5 years. Although it reserved the right to redecorate at longer intervals if it considers it appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and outstanding repairs to her property

The landlord addressed several issues regarding the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and repairs in its complaint responses. For ease of reference, we have referred to each issue separately below.

Cyclical decorations

The landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2023 and apologised for the delay in completing cyclical works. It said it would update the resident about the works, but there is no evidence it did so. This was not appropriate as the landlord had not taken the action it said it would.
The resident continually raised concerns about cyclical decorations to the outside of her property from July 2023 to October 2023. The landlord did not respond to the resident about her concerns until its stage 1 response on 31 October 2023. However, the landlord confused the resident’s concerns with concerns about internal decorations. Given the resident’s concerns, and that the landlord was aware of them in July 2023, the delay of over 3 months in the landlord responding to the resident was unreasonable.
The landlord said it would update the resident about the cyclical decorations in its email of 1 December 2023. However, there is no evidence it later did so. This was not appropriate as the landlord had not responded as it said it would. The resident repeated her concerns about the cyclical decorations in her emails of 1 December 2023 and 27 and 28 February 2024. She continued to raise the issue throughout March 2024.
The landlord responded on 21 March 2024 and told her that it would assess the condition of her property in its 2024/2025 validation schedule and place it on a planned programme subject to the results of this. The landlord reiterated this information in its stage 2 response sent the following day. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information in line with its repairs policy, there was an unreasonable delay in doing so. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it has assessed the resident’s property to ascertain if it would include it in its cyclical decorations.

Repairs to the roof

The landlord raised a job to repair the roof on 15 November 2022, but it did not install scaffolding at the property until 8 December 2023, which was over 12 months later. Due to the scale of the work and the resources required, the works to repair the roof could not reasonably be considered a routine repair for the landlord to complete within its 25-calendar day aim as outlined in its repairs policy. However, the landlord did not provide an explanation to the resident about the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate the reason for the delay to the resident and inform her when the works would commence.
In its stage 1 response issued on 31 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged its failings regarding the roof repairs and offered £350 compensation for this. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise the failures in its handling of the repairs to the roof. However, the works were still outstanding at this point. The resident continued to raise concerns about the repairs to the roof in December 2023 and January, and February 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2024 and informed her of the outstanding works to the roof. It asked its contractor to prioritise this work. While it was reasonable for the landlord to do this, the landlord’s contractor only completed work to repair the roof on 27 February 2024. The resident complained it had missed an appointment on 6 February 2024 during this time. Considering the scaffolding was in place during this period, this was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs and was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024, the landlord said that its contractor had completed the repairs to the roof, but it had identified additional work to repair the chimney. The landlord said its contractors had attended the property in December 2023, but they were unable to complete the works, and a tile was replaced on the roof on 22 February 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident about the further works that were required. The landlord also offered £20 for the missed appointment on 6 February 2024. This was in line with its compensation policy for missed appointments.
However, the landlord has not provided any record of the missed appointment or that its contractors attended the resident’s property on the dates stated in its stage 2 response. This is not appropriate. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Including when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken.
The landlord installed additional scaffolding on 11 April 2024, but it then removed the scaffolding on 29 May 2024 without completing any additional work. The resident has continued to express concerns about the outstanding repairs to the roof as she said the landlord needed to repair the chimney. Although the landlord’s records show that work to repoint a parapet wall is still outstanding, it is unclear what other work is outstanding to the roof.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had requested that the landlord remove the scaffolding from her property. However, she said the additional scaffolding to repair the chimney was in place for 6 weeks before the landlord removed it. This Service also recognises that the landlord may require a party wall agreement with the neighbouring property. Despite this, there were unreasonable delays in the landlord actioning the repairs to the roof.

Repairs to the guttering

The landlord raised a job to unblock the guttering at the resident’s property on 22 November 2023. It completed this work on 6 December 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s aim to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days as stipulated in its repairs policy.
The landlord raised a job to repair the guttering at the rear of the property on 29 August 2023 which it completed on 17 October 2023. This was not appropriate as it went beyond the timescales stated in the landlord’s repairs policy for a routine repair.
The landlord’s records show that it completed work to clear the guttering at the resident’s property on 27 February 2024. Considering it erected the scaffolding on 8 December 2023 this was not appropriate as it had gone beyond the timescales stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.

Repairs to the leak in the kitchen

In her emails to the landlord, the resident said that there had been a leak underneath the kitchen sink since 26 August 2023. The landlord’s records show that it initially attended to the leak on 29 August 2023. This was within an appropriate timescale of 25 calendar days as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, it was unable to stop the leak as it said it needed additional time. It offered to isolate the leak, but the resident refused this.
The resident emailed on 30 and 31 August 2023 and asked the landlord to urgently repair the leak as she was going away. She said that the operative who attended on 29 August 2023 had turned her hot water off. It is unclear if the operative informed the landlord about turning the hot water off. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping. Irrespective of this, it was not appropriate to leave the resident without hot water in the kitchen for 2 days. However, once the resident informed the landlord about the hot water issue on 31 August 2023 it attended the same day and reinstated the hot water. This was in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord reattended to the leak on 1 September 2023 but was unable to stop it. The resident did not want the landlord to isolate the leak. While the resident had said she did not want to isolate the leak, the landlord should have kept in sight its repair obligations in accordance with the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to repair the leak between 1 September and 13 October 2023. Given that the landlord was aware the leak was ongoing, the delay in reattending the property was not appropriate and not in line with its repair obligations.
The landlord said it was unable to access the resident’s property on 13 and 16 October 2023. It rescheduled the appointment for 12 January 2024. However, the landlord attended to repair the leak on 1 November 2023 as stated in its stage 1 response of the previous day. The landlord reattended to repair the leak on 12 January 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident continued to report the leak from January 2024.
In its stage 2 response of 22 March 2024, the landlord said it had raised a repair for the leak. It repaired the leak on 20 June 2024. It was not appropriate for the landlord to leave the leak unattended from January to June 2024 as it had gone beyond its 25-calendar day aim to complete routine repairs as stated in its repairs policy.
Additionally, the repairs guidance available on the Ombudsman’s website says that landlords must complete a full, effective and lasting repair within a reasonable time from when a resident reported it. Whilst it is generally considered appropriate for landlords to adopt a reactive approach to repairs. The volume of reports the landlord received about the leak in this case suggested that repairs were not successful in resolving the issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it needed to undertake a more extensive assessment.

Additional repairs to the kitchen

The landlord raised repairs to renew a base unit and remove a work unit and gas hob in the kitchen on 1 September 2023. It completed these repairs on 12 January 2024. Although it was unable to access the resident’s property on 13 and 16 October 2023, the delay between October 2023 and January 2024 was not appropriate. This is because the landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
The resident raised concerns about a stain on her kitchen ceiling in her email of 27 September 2023. In its stage 1 response of 31 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was her responsibility to complete internal decorations. Although this was correct in line with its repairs policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored the issue further to see if the stain was because of a leak.
In its stage 1 response the landlord also said it would not replace the resident’s kitchen as it offered a repairs service and would only replace a kitchen if it was beyond repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident this as its repairs policy says it will replace kitchens through planned programmes of work.
The landlord advised the resident to report the stain on the kitchen ceiling so it could assess it in its email of 16 November 2023. As the resident had reported this previously, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise a repair or to have acted when the resident first reported the stain. It is unclear from the landlord’s repair records whether this issue is still outstanding.
The resident requested a new kitchen in her emails in November and December 2023.In its stage 2 response issued on 22 March 2024 the landlord reiterated that it would not replace her kitchen unless it was beyond a state of repair.The landlord had carried out repairs in the kitchen in January 2024. This was appropriate as the landlord explained its decision in line with its repairs policy.

Cracks in the property

The resident raised concerns about structural defects in her property on 28 July 2023. The landlord completed an inspection of the cracks in her property on 30 August 2023. This was just outside the landlord’s aim to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days as stated in its repairs policy. However, there is no evidence to confirm what the outcome of the inspection was and if the landlord needed to complete any follow-on works.
The resident raised concerns about the cracks in her property on 27 September 2023. She said that the surveyor who attended her property on 30 August 2023 did not complete an inspection because she had recently decorated. In its stage 1 response sent on 31 October 2023 the landlord said it would contact the surveyor who did the inspection to ascertain if it needed to undertake additional repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s concerns about the lack of an inspection. The landlord did not take any action regarding the cracks in the property. This was not appropriate.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the cracks in her property in her emails to the landlord on 16 November and 5 December 2023. In its stage 2 response sent on 22 March 2024 the landlord said it had raised repairs for the cracks in the resident’s bedroom and bathroom. The landlord completed these works on 16 September 2024. Considering the resident first reported structural defects in her property in July 2023, this was not appropriate as it had gone beyond the landlord’s aim to complete routine repairs in 25 calendar days, as stipulated in its repairs policy.

Summary and conclusions

In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged some of its failings regarding the outstanding repairs in the resident’s property and offered £410 compensation for this. It also outlined the action it would take to resolve the resident’s complaint and followed up on this, although there were delays in it doing so.
In summary, while the landlord responded reasonably to some of the concerns about repairs reported by the resident. The landlord:
1. delayed from July 2023 to 31 October 2023 to provide a response to the resident about cyclical decorations in its stage 1 response, when it confused her issue with internal decorations. The landlord then delayed until March 2024 to provide information regarding cyclical decorations to the resident’s property.
2. delayed by over 12 months to erect scaffolding at the property, after raising a job to repair the roof. Once it had erected the scaffolding, the landlord delayed in completing works from 8 December 2023 to 27 February 2024.
3. failed to maintain adequate records of when its contractors had attended the resident’s property to look at the roof and complete repairs, or what work is outstanding to repair the roof.
4. delayed in completing repairs to the guttering at the rear of the resident’s property.
5. delayed in completing a lasting repair to the leak under the resident’s sink from August 2023 to 20 June 2024, during which time it left the resident without hot water for 2 days.
6. delayed in completing other repairs in the resident’s kitchen from 1 September 2023 to 12 January 2024.
7. failed to follow up on the resident’s reports of a stain on her kitchen ceiling to ascertain if it was due to a leak.
8. delayed by over 12 months, until 16 September 2024, to repair the cracks in the resident’s property following her reports structural defects in July 2023.
The landlord has acknowledged some of its failures in its complaint responses. It has also taken some action to put things right, including completing a repair to the leak in the kitchen and repairing the cracks in the property. However, while the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, it did not recognise all of the above failures in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration because of the extensive delays in responding to the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and completing repairs in her property. The landlord’s repair records suggest it is also still to complete some repairs to the resident’s roof.
The resident told the landlord in her correspondence with it that its handling of her concerns about cyclical decorations and repairs to her property caused her distress and upset. The landlord offered £410 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, the missed appointment and the time and effort taken by the resident to resolve her complaint. However, this does not fully reflect the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident or the additional length of time taken to complete the repairs.
Having carefully considered our guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £300 in addition to the amount offered by the landlord. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and repairs. The landlord should also pay the resident the £410 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence that it has assessed the condition of the resident’s property to ascertain if it would include it in a planned programme for cyclical decorations. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman and provide an update as to whether it inspected the resident’s property in its 2024/2025 validation schedule for inspections as stated in its stage 2 response. In this letter the landlord should explain if it included the resident’s property in a planned programme for cyclical decorations and provide an explanation if it has not.
As it is unclear what work is outstanding to repair the resident’s roof, the landlord should also produce a written report to the resident and the Ombudsman which must include a schedule of works to identify the outstanding repairs to the resident’s roof, together with indicative timescales to complete these repairs, which should then be adhered to.
As the landlord did not follow up on the resident’s concerns regarding a stain on her kitchen ceiling, it should contact the resident to discuss whether the stain on the ceiling is still outstanding, including if any repairs are required. The landlord should write to the resident to set out its decision and any follow-on works required. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
The resident demonstrated her dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the repairs in her emails to the landlord from July 2023. The landlord did not provide a response to the resident until 31 October 2023. This was not appropriate as the Code sets out that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of when it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was not appropriate. The Code says landlords must keep a full recordof the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys. The landlord’s stage 1 response was also unreasonable as it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures.
The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction in contact with the landlord throughout November and December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 3 January 2024. This was an unreasonable delay because the landlord failed to recognise that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint in line with the Code.
The landlord had until 31 January 2024 to provide its stage 2 response. However, it did not provide this until 22 March 2024 which was 58 working days after the landlord had escalated the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord emailed the resident on 22 February 2024 and apologised for the delay in sending the stage 2 response. This was an unreasonable delay. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding at stage 2 and offered £60 for this.
Although the landlord has acknowledged its delay in responding to the resident at stage 2 and offered redress for this, it delayed in raising a complaint at stage 1 and escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord also failed to provide record of it acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed raising and then escalating the resident’s complaint, which delayed the resident in seeking redress through this Service.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident in addition to the £60 already offered. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord must also pay the £60 to the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and outstanding repairs to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident the £470 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
3. pay the resident £400 compensation, which it must not offset against arrears, consisting of:
  1. £300 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about cyclical decorations and outstanding repairs in her property.
  2. £100 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
4. write to the resident and the Ombudsman and provide an update as to whether it inspected the resident’s property in its 2024/2025 validation schedule for inspections as stated in its stage 2 response. In this letter the landlord should say if it included the resident’s property in a planned programme for cyclical decorations and provide an explanation if it has not.
5. produce a written report to the resident and the Ombudsman which must include a schedule of works to identify the outstanding repairs to the resident’s roof, together with indicative timescales to complete these repairs, which must then be adhered to.
6. contact the resident to discuss whether the stain on the ceiling is still outstanding, including if any repairs are required. The landlord should write to the resident to set out its decision and any follow-on works required. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders, including it paying all compensation, within 28 days of the date of this determination.