London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221271)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221271

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Repairs to external doors.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor with her parents who are also tenants. She moved into the property in January 2020 and has health conditions including anxiety, insomnia, epilepsy, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The complainant and her parents, who are all named on the tenancy agreement, made reports and complaints about ASB and external communal doors around the same time, and therefore will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. In this case, the complainant’s tenancy is not with London and Quadrant Housing Trust. London and Quadrant Housing Trust manages the resident’s home on behalf of one of its subsidiaries. For convenience, however, we have still referred to London and Quadrant Housing Trust as ‘the landlord’.
  3. In April 2022, the resident reported ASB within the building. She said non-residents were taking and dealing drugs, leaving rubbish, and sleeping in communal areas. She added that the communal entrance doors were broken allowing public access to the building and she wanted improved security. Between August and December 2022, the resident made further reports of ASB and added there was vandalism taking place. On 21 November 2022, the resident reported that she was physically attacked by a non-resident in a communal area. She said she was attacked again in late November and early December 2022.
  4. On 12 December 2022 the resident complained about ASB and the communal door repairs. The next day, the landlord provided a stage 1 response regarding the communal door repairs. It apologised that the doors were unsecured and explained that its emergency service should have been called. It repaired the communal doors on the lower ground floor on 15 December 2022, and the fire doors leading to the parking area on 20 December 2022.
  5. The resident made further complaints about ASB in December 2022 and January 2023. The landlord issued another stage 1 response on 16 January 2023. It apologised and concluded that the resident’s ASB reports were not dealt with properly. Although assessments were completed and some action taken, such as contacting the police to patrol the area, it recognised this was insufficient. It requested its relevant teams take appropriate action to address this matter within 10 working days. It added it would work collaboratively with external agencies and assured her it would assess any new incidents in line with its policies and procedures. It offered £400 compensation made up of £100 for its handling of the ASB, £100 for the distress, £100 for inconvenience, and £100 for time and effort.
  6. A further complaint was made on 26 January 2023 and the landlord issued a third stage 1 response on 8 February 2023, where it upheld the complaint. It advised the staff member dealing with the case had left the organisation which was why her concerns were not addressed sooner. It apologised this was not communicated and advised that the area manager would be responsible for the building going forward. It obtained a number of quotes for a new fence, doors, electric gates and additional CCTV to provide more security.
  7. The resident continued to report ASB concerns on 22 June 2023. She felt that the landlord had not responded to her concerns properly despite having reported physical attacks. She felt both the inside and outside of the building was unsafe and added that the landlord was no longer operating security patrols. Another stage 1 response was issued on 21 July 2023. The landlord said it was working closely with the local police to enforce more routine patrols to deter people from loitering in the area. It explained that there were constraints on what actions it could take in relation to ASB in public areas. It encouraged residents to report incidents to both it and the police and upgraded some of the entrance locks. It would continue to monitor and review what security improvements could be implemented and aimed to resolve this swiftly.
  8. In late July 2023, the resident reported that the bicycle compartment lock was vandalized and asked again what security arrangements the landlord would put in place. She felt all of her complaints stemmed from the landlord taking little or no action since April 2022. On 29 July 2023, the resident reported that both communal front entrance doors no longer closed.
  9. On 29 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and explained the ongoing ASB was being closely monitored. Regarding the bicycle compartment lock, it raised a repair job to fix it. Further, it noted that a security patrol may not deter the  vandalism that took place outside the building. It added the patrolling of the block was implemented as a temporary plan until the ASB improved and the jobs to secure the external doors were complete. It noted there were security surveillance cameras located throughout the building and caretakers onsite daily. It said that it would install a new gate in January 2024. It apologised for the poor level of communication and offered a further £310 compensation made up of £50 for the delay at stage 2, £120 for the distress and inconvenience for failing to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities, £80 for the time and effort and £60 for poor complaint handling.
  10. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and felt the issues were not treated with the necessary urgency. She reported that the situation was continuing and that the bin store was used as a “sleeping room” by non-residents. As a resolution, she wanted further security measures such as another gate and more CCTV.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident advised that the issues she experienced impacted her health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the remit of this service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this situation has been distressing for the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues, taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action to deal with ASB and will work with relevant partners such as the police to meet its responsibilities. It will work to prevent ASB by carrying out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues on estates and maintaining and managing communal areas to minimise crime and ASB.
  3. Its policy outlines that all reported ASB incidents are assessed based on risk and priority. Standard priority cases are logged and assessed within 3 working days, and high-priority cases are logged and assessed within 1 working day. In response to ASB reports, the landlord will provide advice and support, and agree an action plan with the reporting party, keeping them updated throughout the case. It adds that a vulnerability risk assessment matrix will be completed on all high priority ASB cases. Its policy also outlines intervention actions it can take including those that can be used in respect of non-landlord residents who are causing ASB and will take a multi-agency approach to prevent and tackle ASB. The landlord may use tools such as warning letters and enforcement action.
  4. The resident initially made reports on 9 and 11 April 2022 of ASB involving non-residents sleeping in communal areas as well as drug use and dealing. On 3 May 2022, the landlord said security had been implemented while it worked to fix the problem. Although this was reasonable, the reports still should have been dealt with as per its ASB policy. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord logged an ASB case or carried out a risk assessment for these reports. This is concerning as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and it failed to act in line with its policy.
  5. On 9 August, 2 September, 4 September and 13 September 2022, the resident made another 4 reports of similar ASB. She added there were drug paraphernalia, cigarette butts, and rubbish left in communal areas. However, the landlord failed to respond to these reports within a reasonable timescale. Indeed, it only acknowledged the resident’s reports on 13 September 2022. This was contrary to its ASB policy and it did not log an ASB case within 3 working days. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. Further, the response on 13 September 2022 promised an update within 5 working days, yet this did not happen. This was another failing on the landlord’s part.
  6. The Ombudsman has seen that other residents in the building reported the same concerns between November 2022 and March 2023. It is reasonable to conclude from the various reports that the landlord was aware that serious ASB was taking place. While the landlord cannot be held accountable for the actions of third parties, it should have reassured the resident that it was taking proportionate steps to respond to the ASB, however it only did so in late November 2022 – after the resident reported that she was physically attacked and suffered injuries.
  7. Moreover, following the report of a physical attack, it would have been reasonable to log a high priority case within 1 working day and to carry out a vulnerability risk assessment as per its policy. It is concerning that the landlord did not do this. Indeed it was only until the resident chased it 3 working days later that it provided any meaningful response to her report that she was attacked. This was a significant oversight. It was reasonable for the resident to expect decisive action from the landlord as well as prompt engagement with the police.
  8. While it delayed opening an ASB case, it did so on 24 November 2022 and signposting the resident to the police. It also acted fairly by requesting evidence from the resident and provided updates on the door repairs. Further, there is evidence that the landlord liaised with the police in order to identify the suspect. Although these steps should have been taken sooner, these were reasonable and proportionate steps for the landlord to subsequently take.
  9. The resident told the landlord on 13 December 2022 that she was physically attacked again on 7 December 2022. However, the landlord did not provide any support or assistance in relation to this, and again should have taken some progressive steps to demonstrate to the resident that her safety was being taken seriously. It appears the landlord did not offer a full response to this report until January 2023. This was another oversight that would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident who would have felt frustrated and ignored.
  10. It was not until January 2023 that the landlord appeared to take the ASB seriously. It said this matter needed to be escalated to senior members of staff and held internal meetings to discuss appropriate strategies for tackling this ASB. Further, it recognised that the faulty external communal doors allowed non-residents access to the building and sought to repair these.
  11. In the stage 1 response of 16 January 2023, the landlord apologised and acknowledged that the resident’s ASB reports were not properly dealt with. It now raised a series of actions to be completed in 10 working days which included requesting disclosure from the police, confirming all communal repairs were complete and agreeing a contact plan for the ASB case. Although it is not entirely clear if the landlord kept to these commitments within this timescale, there did not appear to be any further contact with the resident until 8 February 2023 and this was only in response to resident chasing. This was inappropriate and the resident was entitled to believe the landlord would update her accordingly as per the action plan.
  12. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it deployed security on site to deter people loitering and misusing communal areas. The evidence suggest the landlord had patrols in place around May 2022, however in September and December 2022 the resident said there were none. There appeared to be further patrols deployed in January and February 2023 however these were temporary. While it was apparent the resident wanted a more permanent security patrol, the landlord acted reasonably by providing a security service in response to reports of ASB. Nevertheless, it should have monitored the ASB  prior to removing the security patrols and it is unclear if it did this.
  13. Following yet further reports of ASB from the resident in June and July 2023, the landlord explained that it was working closely with the local police to enforce more routine patrols to deter people from loitering. This was a reasonable response. Additionally, it provided advice, reviewed the security on in the building and upgraded some of the entrance locks. These were appropriate actions and demonstrated the landlord was taking suitable steps to try and resolve the reported ASB.
  14. Indeed on 24 July 2023, the resident confirmed that she was “finally satisfied” and that there were now night patrols around the building and adjacent area. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident explaining that security patrols was implemented as temporary plan and reiterated that there were security surveillance cameras which would help deter any ASB. This again was an appropriate response and demonstrated that the landlord was taking the situation seriously, engaging with reports and offering support.
  15. Overall, the landlord did not appear to carry out risk assessments, its action plans were delayed and it did not keep the resident regularly updated. Given the nature of the ASB reports, this was a missed opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously and to manage her expectations from the outset. However, the landlord’s final response of December 2023 appropriately apologised for this and recognised that its repeated delays in responding to the resident and its lack of proactivity contributed to the resident’s distress over a significant period of time.
  16. Additionally, it reassured her that it was monitoring the situation and had since implemented a number of measures to resolve the ASB which were fair and reasonable and in line with its policy. Moreover, the overall offer of compensation of £600; £400 at stage 1, and £200 at stage 2 for its handling of reports of ASB, was broadly in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awarded from £100 where a resident has been adversely affected. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to external doors

  1. Throughout 2022 and 2023, the resident reported a number of issues with communal entrances including the bicycle shed and bin store. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining common entrances, halls, stairways and other communal areas such as estate grounds. Its repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. It adds that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
  2. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within 4 hours. The out of hours service will ‘make safe’ to lower the immediate risk and a follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The landlord’s compensation policy says residents may be compensated for loss of communal service and facilities that are not resolved within agreed timeframes. The policy also says the landlord may offer discretionary compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  3. On 9 and 11 April 2022, the resident requested the landlord repair the lower ground floor and ground floor entrance doors. On 3 May 2022, the landlord said security had been implemented while it worked to fix the actual cause of the problem. It said that non-residents and rough sleepers were able to gain access into the blocks via the fire escape on the outside of the car park doors and it was working to see if it could get those removed which in turn would remove the risk of these people getting in. It is unclear if the landlord repaired communal entrance doors at this point, and there did not appear to be any work orders raised as such. However, it is noted the resident made no further reports of lack of security until August 2022, some 4 months later.
  4. The resident made further reports of issues with door security in August 2022. The landlord appeared to receive a quote for a fence on 1 August 2022 and another quotation for barriers and new automated gates in the car parking area on 28 September 2022. It was encouraging to see that the landlord sought quotation and around 11 November 2022 it installed an additional lock on the bin store.
  5. In the evening on 21 November 2022, the resident reported that the external double entrance doors did not close. The landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair – particularly as in the same report she advised she was physically attacked and that the perpetrator gained access via faulty communal door. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that there was an immediate risk and a likelihood she, or other residents, may be attacked again. However, the landlord did not appear to treat it as an emergency repair. It was not until 24 November 2022 that the landlord advised that it had assigned a contractor for the necessary repairs. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged internally that “all doors in the building are reported from several tenants…to be completely opened and locks are no longer worker”. This should have alerted the landlord to inspect the communal doors promptly. Further reports about external communal doors were made on 26 November and 5 December 2022. While there were numerous repairs reported in a short space of time, the landlord should have appropriately raised these and carried out the repairs in a reasonable time. In this case, the landlord did not do this, at the detriment to residents who continued to experience ASB inside the building.
  6. The landlord’s contractor carried out the repair to the front communal doors on the lower ground floor on 14 December 2022. This was 18 working days after the report of 21 November 2022 and there is no evidence that the landlord attended within 4 hours to “make safe” as per its policy as the report was made out of hours. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns and she had reported that she was attacked at least twice. Indeed, the landlord’s stage 1 of December 2022 said reports of faulty communal doors should have been raised as an emergency repair.
  7. On 17 December 2022, the resident made reports that two communal fire doors leading to the parking area were constantly open. Another resident had also contacted the landlord about this. The landlord raised jobs for this on 20 December 2022. The landlord again failed to treat this as an emergency repair. Indeed, it even said that the job would be attended to in the new year. While it appropriately managed expectations, this approach was concerning given there was an issue with fire doors and that the repair would be attended well over 10 calendar days later and in the new year. This was another failing on the part of the landlord.
  8. On 11 January 2023, the landlord held an internal strategy meeting which accurately recognised the issues that were taking place, and formed appropriate actions to resolve the communal door issues. This was encouraging to see as the landlord was now clearly taking these concerns seriously. One of the major obstacles the landlord faced was that the building was located near a public car park and shopping centre which had some fire exits that went through into the landlord’s building. These exits had emergency door releases on the outside which enabled non-residents to access the communal areas of the building by pressing the door release. The landlord arranged for these emergency buttons to be removed. This was a complex repair as it needed to ensure it was fully compliant with relevant fire safety regulations. It is therefore unlikely that the landlord would have completed this repair in 25 calendar days. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence to show its kept the resident updated throughout and it is unclear exactly when these works were completed. It is also concerning that this was identified as early as May 2022, yet there appeared to be no action taken to remedy this issue until January 2023.
  9. On 26 January 2023, further reports were made that the front entrance door did not automatically close. While the landlord did explain on 8 February 2023 that it obtained a number of quotes, it did not appear to log a repair for the front entrance door, or give an expectation of when it might be resolved. Subsequently, on 19 April 2023, the resident confirmed that some communal doors were fixed but added that there were other communal doors that needed repairing. The landlord did not act fairly as it did not act on this April 2023 request and failed to raise a repair. Indeed, it did not even communicate with the resident again until July 2023. This was a failing and undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to effectively resolve the repair reported. Despite further chases from the resident in June and July 2023, this only appeared to be completed on or around 24 July 2023 which was outside its routine repairs timescales of 25 calendar days.
  10. On 29 July 2023 the resident reported that both communal front entrance doors no longer closed. The landlord raised an emergency repair on 31 July 2023 however this was 2 days after it should have been. Although the landlord’s records were not clear, the resident confirmed to this service on 19 December 2023 that the communal doors had now been repaired. This was, again, a considerable delay and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had continued to report how unsafe she felt.
  11. With respect to the repairs to communal areas, it was unclear exactly when some of the repairs were completed. Although the landlord provided some records, these lacked sufficient detail for the service to understand what the landlord did and when. In line with our recent spotlight report “On the record: Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management” of May 2023, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. No orders or recommendations have been made in this respect, as similar orders have been made in other landlord cases.
  12. It is noted the landlord did not address its handling of the communal doors repairs in its stage 2 final response, despite this being a recurring theme linked to the reported ASB. A stage 1 response in relation to communal door was issued on 13 December 2022. The resident continued to make reports that external communal doors were faulty a number of times between 2022 and 2023. Subsequently, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 asking for its final response regarding this. However, it did not address communal repairs in its final response.
  13. Even though these were communal repairs and did not strictly impact the use or enjoyment of the resident’s flat, the landlord’s handling of the matter was unsatisfactory given the delays and the resident’s efforts to chase the matter. While the landlord experienced challenges and could not be held accountable for non-resident vandalism, particularly outside of the building, it should have carried out the repairs in a reasonable time and considered whether anything further needed to be done.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs to external doors was poor. There were avoidable delays in carrying out works and, at times, it failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated. This would have caused distress to the resident who had to frequently chase repairs. Considering the time and trouble taken by the resident to alert the landlord to the repeated issues with the communal entry door and the delays in resolving the repair, the resident experienced distress living in an unsecured building for various periods, some prolonged, and was concerned about her safety in light of the ASB including physical attacks of which the landlord was aware.
  15. It is concerning that these matters were not met with more urgency and that, where this was not possible, the landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident. Bearing in mind the time and trouble taken by the resident to alert the landlord to the repeated issues with the communal entry door, which it identified as being necessary to mitigate further ASB, and the delays in resolving the repair, the landlord should have offered some compensation for these failings. However, it did not do so. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £100 should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely impacted the resident. In view of this, an orders have been made below.
  16. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord did install a gate in January 2024 as promised but this did not deter people as they are still able to jump over walls, where it is low in some places. The resident added that the bin store room is still often used as a “sleeping room”. This has been considered as part of the orders.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. A stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If the landlord is unable to resolve the complaint at stage 1, residents can request the escalation of their complaint. At stage 2, the outcome should be issued within 20 working days of the request to escalate. At both stages, if the landlord is unable to respond within the timescale, it will write to the resident to explain why and provide the response within a further 10 working days.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 21 November 2022 after she was attacked inside the building. However on 24 November 2022, the landlord appeared to treat this as a service request, despite the subject line of the email as ‘complaint’. While the landlord provided support on 24 November 2022, it should have treated her email of 21 November 2022 as a formal complaint. By not doing so, this delayed the resident in exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. The resident subsequently made a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2022. The landlord provided a stage 1 response the next day on 13 December 2022, however this only addressed the repairs to the communal doors. Despite further contact from the resident in December 2022 that the ASB was continuing and that there were other doors that were unsecured, the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 sooner. Indeed, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction regarding the handling of ASB on 13 December, 29 December 2022 and 4 January 2023.
  4. Following these, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 16 January 2023. This was inappropriate and it should have escalated the complaint and provided a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord on 26 January 2023 about its lack of communication. The landlord again treated this as a separate complaint and issued yet another stage 1 response on 8 February 2023. Despite the resident continuing to express concern about the building safety, communal doors and continued ASB on 22 June 2023, the landlord again continued to a stage 1 response on 13 July 2023.
  5. On 27 July 2023, the resident again explained she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns of ASB and building safety. However, it did not progress matters to a stage 2 complaint. It appears it was only until the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023, that it provided its stage 2 final response of 29 December 2023. Considering the resident made numerous attempts to progress through the complaints process, she was unable to do so. This would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident who continued to complain but was unable to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process in a reasonable time.
  6. In this regard, considering the requests to escalate the complaint around January 2023, June, and July 2023, the landlord’s stage 2 response was not issued when it should have been. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns earlier and these delays would have likely caused frustration for the resident who may have felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously. These failures added to delays in getting matters resolved and required concerted efforts from both the resident and the Ombudsman to progress the complaint.
  7. In the landlord’s final response, it offered £110 for its complaint handling failures made up of £50 for the delay at stage 2 and £60 for poor complaint handling. It appropriately recognised that there was a delay in its stage 2 response and that there was poor complaint handling. It simply considered the resident’s first formal complaint about the matter was made on 22 June 2023. This is inaccurate. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident made a number of formal complaints before this as early as November 2022. Even though the resident was complaining about the same issues, the landlord continued to issue stage 1 responses and it is unclear why the landlord did not escalate the matter to stage 2 sooner. This caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 may be considered appropriate where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. While the landlord made an offer that was greater than £100 for its complaint handling, in this case, the resident made concerted efforts to progress her complaint which were blocked by the landlord. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some compensation for not escalating to stage 2 sooner but it did not recognise this in its final response. An order has been made below to recognise this; however, as mentioned above, no learning recommendations have been made as similar ones have been made in previous landlord cases.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with respect to its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the external doors.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
    2. Inspect the building’s external communal doors, including the bicycle shed and bins store, and ensure that they are in working order. If further works are identified, the landlord must carry out relevant repairs within its policy timescales.
    3. Pay the resident a further £250 made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the external door.
      2. £50 for the failings in its handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.