London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202325703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325703

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 November 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 response to the resident’s reports that:
   1. The space allocated for the cooker was inadequate.
   2. Repairs were required to the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 3 April 2023. The property is described as a ground floor 1 bedroom flat. The landlord’s records show that the resident uses a wheelchair and has a mental health condition. In addition, a flag is placed on her account, showing operatives should attend in pairs.
4. On 24 May 2023, the resident raised a number of repairs including that there were gaps around the front door. A repair report was raised on 1 June 2023 that when the resident’s visitors pressed the buzzer to the communal door, it was not sounding in her property. Also, the landlord’s records show that on 14 June 2023, an electrician attended and reported that the kitchen work top required adjustment as the cooker could not fit into the allocated space.
5. The resident made further repair reports in July 2023 regarding repairs required to the letterbox, a noisy bathroom drain and draughty windows. Also on 8 August 2023, the resident reported that there was mould in a wardrobe and chest of drawers.
6. On 9 August 2023, an electrician attended and replaced the shower pull cord, serviced the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and installed the cooker. The electrician ‘removed trim’ and this allowed the cooker to fit in to the gap.
7. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2023, stating that the repairs she had raised remained outstanding. The resident explained that she had been unable to use the door entry system for 6 months, the front and rear doors required draught excluders and that there was a leak in the cupboard which was causing mould to the wall. Also, the window caskets needed replacing, the bathroom drain was noisy and her cooker could not fit in the space provided.
8. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 28 November 2023, apologising for its delay in responding. The key findings were:
   1. Door entry system.

i.        It had responded to the resident’s concern by arranging for the door entry contractor to attend on 2 separate occasions. On both occasions, the resident had stated that the appointment was not convenient and had not allowed access for the engineer to resolve the issue.

ii.      A key had been provided to the resident on 17 July 2023 by the door entry contractor.

iii.    A further appointment with the door entry contractor for 2 October 2023 could not go ahead as they had requested that another member of staff be present. Its contractor made the request at short notice and it was unable to arrange for a member of its staff to attend.

2. Request for draught excluder.

i.        Reports were received on 24 May 2023, 27 September 2023, 29 September 2023 and on 14 November 2023 regarding gaps with the front door and kitchen door.

ii.      It was unable to agree to the resident’s request for draught excluders as this fell outside its repairs policy. However, it agreed to review its decision when it attended to inspect the spacing provided for the cooker.

3. Cooker space

i.        It acknowledged that the cooker measured 60cm. Its electrician had advised on 14 June 2023 that the gap between the worktop was too small and needed widening.

ii.      Its contractor attended on 21 November 2023 and confirmed that the cooker spacing was less than the industry standard of 60cm.

iii.    The matter had been referred to the area surveyor for resolution.

4. Window casket

i.        Repairs for the window casket were raised on 27 July 2023 and 27 September 2023. On both occasions, it was unable to get access to the resident’s property.

ii.      It signposted the resident to its customer service team to rebook the repair appointments.

5. Noise in the drain and leak in the cupboard with mould on walls.

i.        It stated that it had attended her property on numerous occasions and the resident had not allowed access.

6. Summary

i.        The housing officer and maintenance supervisor attended on 7 August 2023 to address the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged that the resident had requested an earlier appointment for that day. However, when its officers attended, the resident requested that the officers leave the property.

ii.      A further appointment was arranged for 22 August 2023 for the housing officer and maintenance supervisor to carry out an inspection of the door. At that appointment, the maintenance surveyor determined that the draught excluder was not required and it would be for the resident to arrange for the installation. The resident asked its officers to leave the property before the cooker could be inspected.

iii.    The neighbourhood housing lead attended with a supervisor on 26 October 2023. On that occasion, the resident was not available and the appointment was cancelled. That same day, the neighbourhood housing lead called the resident to agree a convenient time for a carpenter to attend. The resident did not agree an appointment date.

iv.    The landlord concluded that it had been unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had attempted to engage with the resident on multiple occasions to resolve the outstanding complaints including making prearranged appointments. Also, the resident had requested that its officers leave the property.

9. The resident responded the same day (28 November 2023) to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. She maintained that the space allocated for the cooker was too small and repairs remained outstanding due to missed appointments by its contractors.
10. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 31 January 2024, apologising for the delay and acknowledging that the resident felt ignored by its lack of contact and it apologised for that also. The key findings were:
    1. Appointments

i.        It provided a list of occasions where appointments were booked and access refused by the resident such as 7 August 2023, 22 August 2023 and 26 October 2023 (for the housing officer and maintenance supervisor to attend).

ii.      It stated that the resident requested that the housing officer and maintenance supervisor leave the property on 22 August 2023 when they did not agree to the installation of draught excluders to the front door.

iii.    It had engaged with the resident’s support worker to assist with its request for access to complete the repairs. It was aware that the support worker had also experienced difficulty contacting the resident regarding this.

iv.    It explained that 2 operatives would attend to carry out work to the property. The reason for this was the safety of the operatives as it had received reports that the resident had made threats and acted aggressively. Consequently, a red flag had been added to the resident’s account.

2. Front door and kitchen door

i.        It had attended to inspect the door on 24 May 2023 following reports that there were gaps to the front door and kitchen door. Similar reports were received on 27 September 2023, 29 September 2023 and 14 November 2023. The doors were assessed to be in good condition and it would not install the draught excluders.

ii.      It advised that the resident could install her own draught excluders.

3. Door entry system and lack of a letter box key

i.        The door entry contractors had attended on 2 May 2023 and 16 May 2023 but the resident did not give access. Access was granted on 19 July 2023 and the resident was provided with a key to the door entry system.

ii.      It had been informed that the communal door was in working order. As the resident advised that she was experiencing problems with the system, a code for the gate was provided on 21 August 2023.

iii.    The neighbourhood housing lead was contacted regarding the letterbox key and it was satisfied that the resident was provided with keys for the letterbox. Following a further report by the resident regarding the letterbox, an appointment had been confirmed for 26 March 2024.

iv.    The door entry contractor responded to the report made on 27 November 2023 that the buzzer entry system was not working. On 28 November 2023, it checked the main gate and block intercom and both were found to be working. It had attempted to contact the resident by buzzing her property, however there was no answer.

v.      Following a further report that the buzzer was not working, the door entry contractor reported that it would not be attending further call outs at the resident’s address due to an incident that had occurred. In response, it had arranged for another company to attend.

4. Noise in the drain, leak in the cupboard and mould on the walls

i.        It set out the various ways it had informed the resident of the appointment for 11 December 2023. However, the resident did not give access though the operative had on the day tried to contact her by phone.

ii.      A further appointment was arranged for the next day (12 December 2023). There was no access when the operative attended and a voice message was left on the resident’s phone.

iii.    The mould in the cupboard had been referred to an external contractor and it was waiting to receive an appointment date. This would be arranged directly with the resident.

5. Window casket

i.        Appointments were arranged for 27 July 223 and 27 September 2023 to assess the windows. On both occasions, it was not given access by the resident. The resident was asked to rebook the appointments by contacting the customer service team.

ii.      An appointment was arranged for 7 December 2023, however as the operative was delayed, he was not able to attend that day and agreed to attend the following morning. The landlord apologised for the short notice given to the resident regarding the change of appointment time.

iii.    It confirmed that the operative attended on 8 December 2023 and on 11 December 2023 and on both occasions, there was no access. A voice message was left requesting that the resident arrange another appointment.

6. Cooker space

i.        It had been informed that this was now resolved.

ii.      It had tried to inspect the cooker space on several occasions and the resident had refused access for its inspection.

7. Summary

i.        It had tried to engage with the resident to gain access to the property to complete the repairs. However, it had not been unable to progress this.

ii.      The neighbourhood housing lead would contact the resident to assess the support she required. Also, it would arrange for the outstanding repairs to be rebooked and support provided during the appointment times.

iii.    It calculated a compensation award of £80. This was broken down as: £20 for the missed appointment, £40 for the delay in providing its final complaint response and £20 for lack of communication.

Events after the complaint process had ended.

11. The landlord issued the resident with a warning letter on 1 March 2024, setting out the dates and times that she had not given access for repairs to be carried out. It stated its intention to provide a final notice at the end of the month once instructions had been obtained from its legal department to enforce the tenancy terms.
12. The resident informed the landlord on 22 March 2024 that she had carried out the mould wash, therefore it did not need to attend to do so. The community mental health team informed the landlord on 15 March 2024 and 27 March 2024 that they were no longer working with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. The landlord responded to a complaint made by the resident on 4 July 2023 and on 11 October 2023 about outstanding repairs. There is no evidence that those complaints completed the landlord’s formal complaint process and/or were escalated to this Service. Therefore, those complaints will not be considered further in this report. This is because paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure.
14. The resident complained to the landlord: on 4 March 2024 about its handling of the heating and hot water in the property, on 10 April 2024 about the conduct of the resident liaison officer, and on 15 April 2024 about the carpet, windows, front door, pest control and anti-social behaviour. Apart from the front door and windows, these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration. Therefore, these are not matters that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. If the resident remains dissatisfied once the landlord issues its final complaint responses, she may approach the Ombudsman for assistance.
15. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair;
    2. put things right;
    3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s vulnerable resident policy sets out its approach to vulnerable residents. This includes:
    1. Acting in accordance with its customer promise to keep residents safe, listen and act and make it easy to deal with the landlord.
    2. Acting to provide the required service adjustments.
    3. Communicating including tone of voice and empathy.
    4. Acting in accordance with agreed timescales, regular contact for progress updates and “stuck” cases being checked.

The space allocated for the cooker was inadequate

17. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states that landlords are responsible for ensuring that residents have sufficient space to prepare and cook food. The date that the resident purchased the cooker is not known. However, on 14 June 2023, the electrician informed the landlord that the space allocated was too small to accommodate the resident’s cooker.
18. The following month, the resident contacted the landlord about the lack of cooking facilities and requested that it reimburse her for the costs of food she had incurred. The landlord checked whether the resident was able to change the type of cooker as free-standing cookers are supplied in a range of sizes. However, it did not act in relation to the resident’s reports apart from informing her that it was unwilling to reimburse her for the food she had purchased, without giving reasons for its decision. This was not reasonable.
19. The landlord arranged appointments on 7 August 2023, 22 August 2023 and 26 October 2023 to assess the kitchen layout. On each occasion, the landlord was unable to carry out an inspection of the kitchen layout. During the appointment on 22 August 2023, the resident requested that the officers leave before the inspection could be carried out. The landlord was unaware that the cooker was installed by an electrician on 9 August 2023. It advised the resident’s support worker of its intention to visit on 18 January 2024 to carry out the cooker installation. The landlord’s records do not explain the delay in its decision making or arranging for the space in the kitchen to be altered.
20. By the time of the landlord’s final complaint response dated 31 January 2024, it had identified that the cooker was fitted. It stated it was aware that the space for the cooker had been resolved. However, it did not acknowledge that the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay in getting the situation resolved.
21. In summary, the landlord’s vulnerable policy states that it will listen and act to support vulnerable people. The landlord’s slow response left the resident without adequate cooking facilities for almost 2 months. After it was installed, the landlord failed to identify that the cooker had been fitted and it continued to arrange unnecessary appointments to inspect the kitchen. Given all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Repairs required to the property

Door entry system

22. The landlord’s records show that it raised repair orders to its door entry contactor following reports in May 2023 about the resident having problems using the communal door. On both occasions, there was no access when the contractor attended. The resident was supplied with a key on 19 July 2023 and was informed by the door entry contractor in August 2023 that the system was working as it should. The landlord had an obligation to maintain the door entry system and it took reasonable checks to ensure that the system was working.
23. The landlord received a further report about the door entry system on 20 September 2023 and its records show that a repair was raised to check the buzzer to the resident’s flat on 2 October 2023. This order was cancelled. It is unclear if this relates to the door entry contractor refusing to attend the resident’s property unless a member of the housing staff be present. The landlord was unable to arrange for a member of its staff to attend the resident’s property that day. The landlord’s records do not provide any information about the incident that occurred which led the door entry contractor to reach that decision, therefore it is not possible to reach a conclusion on what occurred that day.
24. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a repair to the door entry contractor following a new report received on 27 November 2023 that the buzzer was not working in the resident’s property. When the door entry contractor attended, it carried out checks to the gate and block intercom but did not receive a response when it tried the resident’s buzzer. As the issue reported by the resident related to a fault to the buzzer in her property, it would have been reasonable for the door entry contractor to try an alternative means to contact the resident to check her individual buzzer such as contacting her by phone. It did not do so which was a shortcoming.
25. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged another appointment for 5 December 2023 for the resident to point out the issues that she was experiencing. It is noted that the resident did not respond when the contractor knocked on her door. The resident did not give an explanation for not providing access for the contractor to check the operation of the buzzer when under the terms of the tenancy agreement she was obliged to do so. After the complaint response, in March 2024, the landlord raised another order for the buzzer in the resident’s property to be checked.

Draughts

26. The landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied that draught excluders were not required to the front and kitchen door as they were secure and did not have any gaps. Following visits by its operative on 24 July 2023 and 22 August 2023, the landlord reaffirmed its position that the door did not require draught excluders. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions that it had received following these inspections.
27. The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that it will adjust services to fit its resident. In line with its policy, the landlord could have considered whether it should install the draught excluders without cost to the resident or fitted the draught excluders and recharged the resident for the cost of doing so.Nevertheless, the landlord referred the resident to its healthy homes team on 6 September 2023. This was a reasonable action to identify how it could offer support to the resident regarding the cold that wasreported. It is noted that there is no evidence that there was any attempt to assess the thermal warmth of the propertyas the resident had complained that the property was cold. This was a shortcoming.
28. The resident also complained about the condition of the back door and that it was draughty. When the landlord attended, on 18 May 2023, there was no access for the appointment. Another repair order was not raised for this despite the resident making further reports in July 2023 and November 2023 about the condition of the back door. Neither was the condition of the back door addressed in its complaint response which was the landlord’s opportunity to provide its opinion. This was not reasonable. It is noted that an appointment was made after the complaint process ended in June 2024 for the gaps to the rear door to be rectified.
29. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it is responsible for the maintenance of letterboxes in flats and maisonettes. The landlord’s records show that repairs were completed to the letter box on 24 July 2023 and 25 October 2023 in response to a report of a draught. However, its records do not say what work was carried out and the resident communication about the issue indicates that the draught complained about from the letterbox remains unaddressed. This is not reasonable as it is not possible to say with certainty that the works carried out resolved the reported repair. With regard to the letterbox key, the landlord raised orders on 19 December 2023 and 31 January 2024 to replace this. This was showing as completed on 19 March 2024 which exceeds its non-emergency repair timescale of 25 days.
30. Landlords have an obligation to maintain the home to a reasonable standard and respond to repair reports in a reasonable timeframe. The resident reported on 27 July 2023 that the windows in the property were draughty. The landlord’s records are not clear about which windows in the property were affected. In addition, there is a lack of clarity about the dates that it attended regarding these issues as its internal communication records show that its contractor attended on 27 September 2023 but this appointment is not reflected in its repair records. The contractor also attended on 1 November 2023. Both dates exceeded its published non-urgent repair standard of 25 days that it says that it will respond within.
31. The landlord’s vulnerable resident policy says that it will make proactive appointments. With regard to the window appointments, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy as the resident was advised to rebook the appointments once its contractor had reported that when it attended there was no access. Following a repair report about the condition of the gutters, the windows were assessed on 11 April 2024. This found that the windows were in good condition and the trickle vents were working.

Drains, leak and mould.

32. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond within 24 hours when it receives a report that meets its emergency repair criteria. The landlord acted in line with this when it responded to a report of a defect to the shower drainage on 25 July 2023. Further reports were made on 15 August 2023 regarding smells from the drain and drain flies on 17 November 2023, 29 November 2023, 11 December 2023. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there was no access for the rearranged appointment date when the original appointment date could not be met at the end of November 2023. It agreed to arrange for an external contractor to attend to resolve the problems with the drainage. This was reasonable.
33.  Following the resident’s report of mould in the wardrobe and chest of drawers on 8 August 2023, the landlord appropriately attended within its non-emergency repair target of 20 working days. Again, there is a failure in its record-keeping as its records do not show the action it took to resolve the damp so it is not possible to assess these. On 7 September 2023, a referral was made to its healthy homes team which suggested the clearing of gutters. These were cleared 13 days later on 20 September 2023.
34. The resident made a report to the landlord on 11 October 2023 that the mould to the property had caused damage to her possessions. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether it was liable for the damage to the furniture through its compensation policy or by making a referral to its insurers. This is not reasonable as its compensation policy states that compensation may be payable if the damage to a resident’s belongings is due to its delay with carrying out day to day repairs.
35. A further report that the wall in the hallway was wet was made on 5 December 2023. This was resolved on 29 December 2023. The lack of detail in the landlord’s records means that it is not clear whether the leak that caused the hallway wall to be wet is related to the reports of mould. This was not reasonable as repair records should what reports are received and when, and the action taken to resolve the repair.
36. Following a report of a leak into the cupboard on 9 January 2024, the resident made a further report on 12 January 2024 that the mould had returned despite being painted over. The landlord in its final complaint response agreed that its contractor would contact the resident to agree an appointment to address the reported mould. This approach was not in line with its vulnerability policy which states that it would make prearranged appointments for its vulnerable customers. However, it is noted that it did arrange for a mould wash to be carried out on 3 April 2024. When the appointment was missed by the resident, she advised that she had carried out the work herself. It is noted that the landlord relied on the information supplied by the resident that no further action was required without taking further steps to assess whether the cause of the damp had been diagnosed and addressed.

Appointments

37. This Service’s Spotlight Report on: Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) sets out that a resident’s vulnerabilities should be well managed and that repair appointments should reflect any reasonable adjustments required.
38. The landlord acted reasonably when it agreed to visit the resident’s property on 7 August 2023 with its maintenance supervisor to inspect and assess the property condition. The visit was unsuccessful due to a misunderstanding between the landlord and the resident about the appointment time with the resident requesting that its staff leave. It was reasonable that the landlord rearranged another appointment for the visit to take place on 22 August 2023.
39. The resident stated that appointments were missed on 18 December 2023 and on 15 January 2024. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will pay £20 for each missed appointment. In its final complaint response, the landlord made a compensation award of £20, without explaining which missed appointment it related to. This was not reasonable.
40. The landlord informed the resident on 8 January 2024 that it was not prepared to book repair appointments until the resident agreed to provide access. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its obligations to carry out repairs to the property. Also, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is obliged to provide access to the landlord for it to diagnose, inspect and carry out the repairs it is responsible for.
41. The Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight Report also states that landlords should explore the reasons for missed appointments. It is noted that reminders were sent to the resident about the appointment date and time. The landlord also tried to get access by copying in her support worker and informing them of the appointment dates and it contacted the community mental health team to obtain advice on the best way to support the resident. On 20 December 2023, it contacted the resident to ask how it could support her advising that it would refer her to its resident support team. Furthermore, it considered the suitability of the property for the resident. These were all reasonable actions.
42. The landlord’s records do not set out the circumstances for its decision that all repair appointments would be attended in pairs due to the resident’s behaviour, which was described as threatening and aggressive. However, by 18 December 2023, the resident had requested an explanation and advised that she was unhappy with the decision to have 2 operatives attend her property. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident at this point the reason for its decision to have 2 operatives attend nor why it had put a red flag on the account.
43. It is noted that on 24 January 2024, the landlord did attempt to give an explanation to the resident, including that she could request a review of its decision. It was unable to do so as the resident apparently ended the conversation abruptly. In its review of the complaint, the landlord addressed this issue, advising that it had health and safety responsibilities for its staff which includes contractors that work on its behalf. The landlord could have gone further by providing a full explanation to the resident of the steps she could take to appeal the landlord’s decision.

Summary

44. Ultimately, the landlord did not follow its vulnerable resident policy regarding the resident’s reports that the front and rear doors were draughty. While it had assessed that there were no defects to the front door, it did not respond to the resident’s reports that the property was cold, give due consideration to assisting her in installing the draught excluders herself or assess the thermal warmth of the property.
45. With regard to the problems expressed with the entry door system, the landlord arranged for its door entry contractor to attend. Checks were carried out to the buzzer and the gate and were assessed as being in working order. As the resident maintained that there remained a problem with the buzzer in her flat, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged a further appointment to investigate this.
46. The landlord is responsible for taking reasonable steps to resolve repairs reports such as those it received regarding the drains and of damp and mould. The landlord did not always provide evidence to demonstrate the communication with the resident when arranging repair appointments or how it followed up after appointments were missed. The limitations of its records means it is not possible to conclude that the landlord always acted promptly in response to the resident’s reports or when it was aware that appointments had been missed as outlined in its vulnerability policy.
47. The resident is obliged to provide access for the landlord to carry out repairs. It is acknowledged that the landlord experienced difficulties in getting the resident to engage for the repair appointments to be carried out. The evidence shows that it tried to work with its partners in the community mental health team to help to arrange access to carry out repairs and sent reminders to the resident to remind her of the appointments that had been made. This included the operative ringing the resident when on site. These were reasonable actions to take.
48. The landlord’s decision that 2 operatives would attend the resident’s property resulted in her expressing more dissatisfaction. This Service is unable to comment on the reasonableness of the decision that 2 operatives were needed as the events leading to this decision are not set out in the landlord’s records. However, the landlord is responsible for the health and safety of its staff and has to provide a safe working environment.
49. Given all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

50. The landlord’s complaint handling timescales state that at its first stage it will respond within 10 working days and it will do so at its final stage within 20 working days.
51. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2023. In line with its complaint procedure (that says complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days), the landlord tried to contact the resident the same day to discuss the complaint. When it was unable to do so, it sent an email acknowledging the complaint and setting out the next steps it was taking such as making a referral for the maintenance team to visit.
52. In addition, the email advised that it would respond to the complaint on 28 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident its initial complaint response on 28 November 2023, therefore meeting its published time frame of 10 working days.
53. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to the landlord’s final stage. On 6 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and requested a convenient time to speak with the resident as an opportunity to understand the outstanding issues.
54. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) stated that if a landlord cannot meet its complaint handling published target, it should inform the resident that an extension of time is required, which should not exceed a further 10 working days. In line with this, the landlord contacted the resident on 22 December 2023 and apologised for its delay. However, it did not set out when the resident would receive its response, which was a shortcoming.
55. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 31 January 2024. This was 43 working days after the complaint was escalated and exceeded its published time limits. The landlord offered a compensation award of £80. This was for missed appointments, delay in its providing its final complaint response and for its poor communication.
56. The following month, the landlord considered increasing the compensation by a further £40 for 2 missed appointments. It decided not to do so. In its complaint review, it did not take the opportunity to consider whether it should offer more compensation for the service failures experienced by the resident. The landlord informed the resident that the compensation it had awarded could not be increased as the compensation award was “non-negotiable.” The term “non-negotiable” is incompatible with the principles outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s Remedies Guidance. When carrying out its review of the complaint, the landlord should have assessed whether there was a failure in its service and provided adequate compensation to redress this.
57. The landlord’s compensation policy does not give categories of awards for discretionary compensation. This Service’s Remedies Guidance states that compensation awards between £50 to £100 should be paid when there has been minor service failure experienced by the resident. Its award of £40 was not proportionate for the complaint handling failures experienced by the resident. Given that the landlord did not use the complaint process to identify the failures in its service, or to make a compensation award that reflected those failings, a finding of service failure has been made.

Determination

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the space allocated for the cooker was inadequate.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s various repairs reports.
60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

61. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Send a letter of apology to the resident for the service failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation, including the £80 it awarded in its complaint response. This is broken down as:

i.        £300 for its failure to install the cooker and the distress and inconvenience experienced.

ii.      £200 for the delay in carrying out the repairs to the property and its record keeping failures.

iii.    £100 for its complaint handling failures.

3. Write to the resident explaining the process to make a claim for the damage caused to her furniture due to the mould in the property.
4. Arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the door entry company to attend to assess the volume of the buzzer in the resident’s property and establish whether it is working effectively.

62. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.