London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202342939)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342939

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 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 the resident’s reports about:
    1. Repairs.
    2. Pests at the property.
    3. The maintenance of the communal areas.
    4. The parking management.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for information about rent and service charges.
    2. Response to the resident’s transfer request.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 1 August 2016.  The property is a 2-bedroom third floor flat in a block. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children. The landlord confirmed it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. On 17 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had reported repairs but had not received a response. She said the repairs were to the extractor fan, mould on the skirting and ledge of the windows, water collecting around the windows damaging the wood, silverfish and a smell.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 February 2022. She said the following:
    1. During a service completed by a contractor that day it was noted it took almost 2 minutes for the hot water to work and the temperature would fluctuate.
    2. A repair to the radiator in the hallway was outstanding. In order for the other room or hallway to be heated she needed to keep the valve at 6. This contradicted advice given previously. She could not set it to a certain temperature, and the property would always suffer from condensation and mould. This was affecting her children’s health.
    3. She needed to turn thermostats in the front room and bedroom to 25 for them to heat up. The bedroom thermostat had been replaced with a working one.
    4. The air vent in the bathroom had 2 clips missing and it was coming away from the ceiling. Operatives had attended but it was not fixed. The report and the first operatives who attended about the bathroom vent said that the air ducts need cleaning.
    5. The kitchen air vent had a part missing and did not switch on.
    6. A contractor had explained the taps were causing the low water pressure and reducing the temperature of the hot water.
    7. She was waiting for the landlord to contact her about finishing jobs to silicone around the windows and change the skirting and ledge.
    8. There was a silverfish infestation in the property in both bedrooms, not only around the skirting but in furniture. Flies were a pest within the property. These were the same flies that were found in the lift.
    9. Noise in pipes was still continuing.
    10. She stated in an email at least a year prior that her daughter had respiratory issues and now her son had developed a constant cough from the condensation. The household had now developed anxiety from living in the property and a fear from pests.
    11. She requested compensation for all of the above in addition to being re-housed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 May 2022. It said the following:
    1. It apologised for the time taken to respond. It said the complaint was incorrectly assigned.
    2. It understood the works raised to the radiator in the hallway, thermostats in the bedroom and front room, and filter/aerator were completed.
    3. It had booked a repair appointment on 31 May 2022 for the reports of the air vent coming away in the bathroom.
    4. A works order was raised to advise the ventilation in the property was inadequate. The contractor unblocked the vents, but believed there was a larger blockage and recommended upgrading the extractor ventilation. This was now completed.
    5. A plumber confirmed the pressure to the bath taps was now adequate.
    6. It completed works to the silicone around the windows, skirting, and ledge on 4 April 2022.
    7. It asked the resident to confirm if silverfish and flies were still present.
    8. The issue about the noise from pipes had been investigated under a previous complaint. If the resident remained unhappy with this, she needed to request an escalation of this complaint.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on the same day. She said the landlord had not addressed all of her concerns. She said the following:
    1. The bathroom vent was not working and the kitchen air duct or the main system was not cleaned. The operatives attending advised it was a specialist repair.
    2. The issue with the bath taps was not resolved.
    3. The repair to the silicone was incomplete.
    4. The silverfish and flies were an ongoing issue.
    5. She had responded to the previous stage 1 response about noise in the pipes and requested an escalation.
    6. A loss of heating and hot water had been addressed in a previous complaint and the landlord had not responded to further information she had provided.
    7. The windows were causing health issues and damp and mould. She could not open the windows without wedging something in between because the wind slammed them shut. The frames were constantly cold.
    8. Pests, drafts, and smells were entering the property under the front door.
    9. She requested a breakdown and an explanation for the rent increase and service charges. The resident said she had been living on a building site for the previous 5 years and the rent should be frozen or reduced.
    10. The external disrepair required builders onsite for at least 3 years. This was causing disruption.
    11. The communal cleaning of the building was very basic. She asked when the carpets would be cleaned.
    12. She asked why parking spaces for guests to use at the front of the building had been reallocated. She asked about a discounted process for parking for visitors of residents.
    13. The resident asked to be permanently moved.
  6. In August 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised works for a full service to the air vent ducts, the silicone around the windows and skirting, the tap. The landlord raised a works order in November 2022 for the treatment of silverfish in the property. Works to change the tap were completed on 19 December 2022. The landlord raised further works to the property following a surveyor visit in January 2023. This included work to radiators in the lounge and bedroom, silverfish treatment, repair to the vents, and an electrical check due to bulbs blowing. A repair was completed to the ventilation system in March 2023. A contractor visited the property in October 2023 to complete a report on ventilation and damp and mould in the property. This recommended repairing the ventilation system.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 January 2024. It said the following:
    1. A job had been scheduled for 31 October 2023 to paint the walls around the windows in the bedroom and living room with anti mould paint. The resident had cancelled this appointment and this was completed on 20 November 2023.
    2. It raised a job to check the electricity in the property due to lights blowing. An electrician attended on 31 October 2023. The resident had reported the lights were still tripping and an appointment had been made for 5 January 2024.
    3. A further repair to the bathroom vent had been completed on 22 November 2022. The contractor reported that the control board of the ventilation machine required replacement. This had been completed on 2 March 2023.
    4. The resident had reported the ventilation system was noisy. A contractor was scheduled to attend on 5 January 2024 to look into the resident’s concerns about the noise from the ventilation system.
    5. It understood the condensation within the property had made the resident and her children ill, for which it apologised. However, it also said that this fell outside of its complaint policy and it provided information for the resident to make an insurance claim.
    6. In regard to the silverfish, a job was raised to a contractor but cancelled. A further job was raised and the contractor would contact the resident directly.
    7. Following a contractor visit on 30 October 2023, it had been reported that silverfish were present due to the lack of ventilation. It was confident that now the vents were working this would help.
    8. A contractor attended on 29 November 2022 following the resident’s reports about the radiators in the hallway and front room. The job report stated all radiators were left working as they should.
    9. On 25 October 2023, the resident said there were still issues with the radiators. A contractor had attended and left the heating working.
    10. A part for the radiator to the hallway was required and a further repair was booked for 24 November 2023. The operative had failed to attend. This was a missed appointment and would be reflected in the compensation. The contractor attended on 5 December 2023 to complete this repair.
    11. A contractor attended on 30 March 2023 and completed the works to repair 2 window cills in the bedroom, overhaul the kitchen units, renewed the skirting in the bedrooms, coated and painted the ceiling and bathroom, renewed the shower, painted window reveals, painted the bathroom, applied sealant to bath, repaired the bath panel, and draught-proofed the door.
    12. On 30 October 2023, an operative attended to inspect the shower hose. A job was completed on 13 November 2023 to renew the shower rail. It had instructed works to investigate the noisy pipes at these appointments but the operative did not see these notes. This was considered a service failure and would be reflected in the compensation award.
    13. It attended on 1 January 2023 and had been unable to identify noise from the pipework and no repairs were necessary.
    14. On 25 October 2023 the resident reported the kitchen cupboard hinges had come off. The landlord repaired this on 30 October 2023.
    15. On 13 December 2023 the landlord installed a draught excluder on the door.
    16. There was a program of work to replace windows on the development over the next 3 years. Its inspection had found no repairs required to the windows.
    17. In regard to the external repairs, nothing could be done to reduce the noise as the whole development was being worked on with contractors present each day. The resident would be receiving compensation for this. It would not freeze or reduce rent due to the works being carried out on the estate
    18. It sent emails to all residents providing updates, the resident liaison officers were on-site daily and they held monthly surgeries for residents.
    19. The caretakers cleaned the blocks weekly and signed sheets to show this had been done. It had noticed some areas where the carpet required cleaning and had asked a team to assist with this.
    20. In regard to parking, it was not aware that any discounts would be provided.
    21. During inspections of the block an odour had not been noted, however it was hoping when the carpets were cleaned this would help.
    22. Affordable rents were calculated to be a percentage of the market rent level then increased by September’s consumer price index (CPI) plus 1% annually. In 2020 the government said in their Rent Standard that affordable rents should be increased by the previous September’s consumer price index (CPI) + 1% every year in April.
    23. It had identified that this level of increase was too high for a lot of social housing residents to afford so it had decided to cap the rent increase to 7%.The net rent increased by £11.08 per week instead of £17.56 per week from April 2023
    24. Affordable rent homes would never be rented above 80% of the market rent level. The market rent level for the resident’s property was £323.00. The rent was currently around 52% of the market rent level.
    25. With regard to resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges, as the property was rented under affordable rent, it did not provide a breakdown of service charge costs for affordable rent properties. This was because as per the tenancy agreement, the gross rent was unaffected by the estimate of the service charge.
    26. In regard to a request to transfer property, it provided information and links to information about mutual exchange, and local authority housing.
    27. Repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly. It was sorry the service the resident received fell short of acceptable standards.
    28. It offered the resident £760 of compensation.
  8. The resident responded on 10 January 2024. She said the issues with the flies had not been addressed. She said she had escalated another complaint about heating and hot water on 6 December 2022 but this was not addressed. She said the pest control job had not been cancelled but booked on 3 occasions, in which the contractor had not arrived at the agreed time. The resident said the windows, ventilation, and poor circulation were the causes of the damp and until these were addressed the silverfish infestation would continue. The resident did not agree with the compensation offered and raised additional concerns about damp and mould in the utility cupboard, an excessive increase in energy top up and a broken water leaver in the utility cupboard.
  9. The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 22 January 2024. It said the following in addition to its previous stage 2 response:
    1. It was sorry it had not addressed the flies in the property in its response.
    2. The loss of heating and hot water was not addressed because this was a different complaint. This would be escalated under the original complaint.
    3. It understood from the resident’s email that painting was affected by the ongoing issues of mould and condensation. Due to this it had awarded the resident a £100 decorating voucher.
    4. 3 electrical inspections had been completed and the electrical wiring was satisfactory.
    5. The resident noted to its electrician that the ventilation unit was noisy and would turn it off. This is not how the unit worked as it needed to be left on continuously on a low level of airflow and boosted when using the kitchen or bathroom. As it was left, the system was not set up as it was designed to be used, because the electrician was trying to work with the resident to reduce noise. This was not ideal, but it would at least keep the air extracting.
    6. It acknowledged its contractor had attended in November and December 2022 and in January 2023 about the silverfish. It apologised that the stage 2 response stated the appointment had been cancelled.
    7. It believed the flies were due to the damp conditions.
    8. Its contractor had attended the property on 5 December 2023 and confirmed the TRV was replaced on hallway radiator. The heating system was tested and all radiators were heating up normally, with no further work required.
    9. With regard to the settings to allow the radiators to heat up. It had raised a job to balance the heating system to see if this helped.
    10. It was unable to locate photographs to evidence the works completed in March 2023. It had requested these from its contractor. When an operative attended the property they would provide a comment on the scope of work that was completed and if necessary what further repairs were required
    11. It had raised a job for a carpenter to attend and assess the door and hinges to see if a repair could be completed on 23 February 2024.
    12. The resident said that a new hose had been installed but due to the hose coming from underneath the mixer and not from the back of the mixer she was experiencing limescale, rust, and mould. Due to it being a reactive repairs service, it would only look at repairing or renewing the taps and hose if it affected the functionality of the shower.
    13. The resident raised a complaint in September 2021 regarding the whole scheme compensation and had advised she was still experiencing noises within her property. It had issued a stage 1 decision and informed the resident compensation given to the whole scheme totalled 7 months. As no further reports were received regarding the noise from the boiler this was closed.
    14. A plumber attended on 2 January 2024 and was unable to hear any noise.
    15. It provided the contact details for external building project related queries. The rent would not be frozen. It provided a contact email to discuss the compensation for the disruption experienced.
    16. The mobile caretaker could be requested to do some carpet cleaning if the resident wanted this.
    17. It was in communication with the parking group in the tenants and residents association (TRA) and meetings had already happened. Once an agreement was reached all residents would be informed.
    18. The neighbourhood lead was aware of all the blocks they looked after as they spent a considerable amount of time there. Regular cleaning took place and this should limit the odours reported.
    19. As an affordable rent resident, the resident paid a weekly rent which is inclusive of service charges. Any services it provided to the resident were covered by the gross rent she paid. An affordable rent figure was calculated by taking factors such as where a property is and how many bedrooms it has. The service charge cost was not a factor at all. It did not add any more charges on top for services.
    20. There was no separate service charge and due to this, there were no costs. If a breakdown had been provided previously this was an error.
    21. It had emailed its lettings team to see if they have received the resident’s transfer request. It provided the contact details for this department
    22. With regards to damages to belongings, the resident would need to contact its insurance team to claim. It provided the details of how to make a claim.
    23. It was arranging for operatives to attend the property to help identify the source of the ongoing issues. An appointment was scheduled for 17 January to inspect the reports of silverfish, investigate the noise, assess if any temporary solutions could be completed to allow the windows to stay open, and to assess the door. However, the resident had informed it that this appointment was not convenient and it would be in contact to arrange a more suitable appointment.
    24. It offered a revised amount of compensation £1530 broken down as follows:
      1. £540 for distress (£20 x 27 months).
      2. £540 for inconvenience (£20 x 27 months).
      3. £50 for time and effort.
      4. £60 for complaint handling (raised incorrectly & delay in stage 1).
      5. £220 for the delay in stage 2 response.
      6. £50 for service failure (job raised but not inspected).
      7. £20.00 for a missed appointment.
      8. £50 as a goodwill gesture (purchasing pest products).
    25. In addition, it would be issuing a £100 voucher to purchase paint to complete remedial works.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service in February 2024. The resident confirmed to this Service in October 2024 that the damp and mould was still present throughout the property caused by condensation, and her and her children were suffering with health conditions due to this. She said no further repairs to the ventilation system had taken place and the problem with silverfish had become worse.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to further issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the prior complaint about the noisy pipes, and the loss of heating and hot water. This is because these issues were raised in separate stage 1 complaints made to the landlord. This Service also cannot consider the issues raised after the end of the complaints process about the utility cupboard, an increase in energy and parking tickets. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in February 2022, which were addressed in the landlord’s final response in January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
  2. In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.
  3. During the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident raised concerns about damages to furniture and personal items. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it had acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

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

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy effective in 2022 says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. It says it does not undertake repairs that include for cupboard hinges that need tightening or reattaching, cupboard and drawer handles, replacing shower heads and hoses, and minor gaps between skirting boards and floor coverings. The policy says that for routine day to day repairs it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works it will attend within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy effective from July 2023 says it aims to complete routine day to day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy effective from August 2023 says it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. For missed appointments without at least 24 hours notice the landlord will award £20. The policy does not cover compensation in relation to damage to a resident’s home and/or belongings or for personal injury, this will be considered by its insurance team.
  5. The resident’s complaint raised multiple repair issues. This investigation will assess the repairs raised separately before reaching a conclusion on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.

Damp and mould, painting, and air vents.  

  1. This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report in October 2021, prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
  2. This Service has not seen the resident’s initial report of mould. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 October 2021 to advise she had not received a response to repairs reported including to mould on the skirting and ledge of the windows. The landlord’s repair records showed it raised works on 21 October 2021 to arrange a mould clean in the property and investigate the cause. This was an appropriate action to take to both treat the mould and investigate the cause. This Service has not seen the outcome of this investigation, but repair records stated this work was completed on 27 October 2021. The resident reported she was still experiencing mould and condensation in her complaint in February 2022.
  3. It was evident from an email the landlord sent to the resident on 6 July 2022 that it believed the damp conditions were possibly from the ventilation system not working correctly. However, it did not demonstrate that it had completed the works to resolve this issue in a reasonable timeframe. The resident had reported outstanding works to the vents in the kitchen and bathroom in her complaint on 11 February 2022. Furthermore, the landlord’s repair records noted a job raised to the property on 16 December 2021 which stated the ventilation system in the property was inadequate for purpose. It said the contractor had unblocked vents but believed there was a bigger blockage in the main ducting system and recommended upgrading the extractor ventilation system in the property.
  4. In her complaint escalation the resident said the vent covers in the bathroom had been replaced but the vent was not working. The landlord ordered works on 27 July 2022 to inspect the air duct and carry out a service of the system. The landlord told the resident on 19 October 2022 that its contractor had attended an appointment for this in August 2022 but the resident had not provided access. Following a service of the ventilation system in November 2022, the landlord completed works to replace the control board due to a fault on 2 March 2023. The landlord had excessively delayed in resolving the problem with the vents for the resident here. While the no access appointment accounts for part of the delay, the landlord did not demonstrate it had retained an adequate oversight of the repair and did not follow this up with the resident in a reasonable timeframe. As such the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to chase this repair, and continued living with inadequate ventilation.
  5. Following its escalation of the resident’s complaint, the landlord ordered works for a mould wash on 17 October 2023, works to inspect damp and mould on 18 October 2023, and a repair to paint the walls around the window in the bedroom with anti mould paint. On 30 October 2023 a damp and mould contractor visited the property to carry out an inspection of the ventilation, damp and mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out this inspection However, considering the resident had continued to report damp, mould and condensation to the landlord from her complaint in February 2022 onwards, it had excessively delayed in actioning this report.
  6. The report on 30 October 2023 stated a repair to the vent was still outstanding and recommended repairing this. It is not clear if the landlord took action following this report. The contractor report noted no indications of excessive moisture in the property, watermarks or leaks. It noted the property was suffering from condensation and historical mould noted to be a small area less than 30cm². It said the cause of the condensation was inadequate ventilation due to a faulty mechanical vent. It recommended a repair to this system. The report noted that the resident was not following best practice at keeping the property at a constant temperature to reduce condensation. The report stated the resident had been reminded about using the thermostat correctly. This was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information and guidance to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s final response stated the vents were fixed but the resident had reported they were making a lot of noise. The resident told the landlord on 10 January 2024 that only 1 vent worked. The landlord explained in its revised final response that this had been left as it was to reduce the noise the resident had experienced. While this demonstrated the landlord attempting to resolve the noise issue from the vents for the resident, it had not demonstrated that it continued to follow up the outstanding repair to the ventilation system until the resident continued to raise this. This was a concern in consideration that the landlord was aware the ventilation at property was causing condensation as stated in the contractor report in October 2023.
  8. The landlord’s final response in January 2024 said it had raised works to investigate the damp and mould. The landlord did not provide any evidence of further inspections of the property or completion of works. The resident confirmed to this Service in October 2024 that the damp and mould problem due to ventilation was still outstanding.
  9. The landlord was aware of the of the health vulnerabilities within the household. The resident told the landlord in her complaint in February 2022 that the condensation in the property was affecting the health of her children. She said her daughter had respiratory issues and her son had developed a constant cough. On 2 January 2023, the resident told the landlord the mould was getting worse and her children were having to use asthma pumps. The landlord did not demonstrate it had taken the resident’s health concerns into consideration in the timeliness of its response to her continued reports of condensation and mould.
  10. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded. However, the resident informed the landlord during the complaints process, that her daughter has respiratory issues and her children used asthma pumps. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
  11. In regard to the painting, on 4 January 2023, the resident told the landlord in an email that a surveyor had visited the property that day and raised works to paint around the windows, change the skirting and ledges due to mould, and to chase up the contractor about the ventilation system. This Service has not seen the report from this visit or a record of the visit on the repair records provided by the landlord. The landlord’s final response stated the work to paint the walls around the windows with anti mould paint was completed on 20 November 2023. This was over 10 months after the resident informed the landlord that this work had been identified. This delay was unreasonable.
  12. The landlord’s final response stated that it understood the painting work had been compromised due to unresolved dampness and mould. It offered the resident a decorating voucher of £100 to complete the remedial works. While the offer of a voucher demonstrated the landlord attempting to put things right for the resident in the short term, it had acknowledged here that the problem remained unresolved for the resident.
  13. This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. The landlord’s revised final response appropriately responded to resident’s concerns about damage to belongings and health in line with its compensation policy. It confirmed the process for making a claim through its insurance team and provided the instructions for this and adequate information on the process.

Electrics

  1. It was unclear when the resident first reported an issue with lights blowing in the property. The resident told the landlord that a surveyor had raised works for this following a visit to her property In January 2023. The landlord’s repair records showed it completed works for and electrical tests on 8 March 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 4 January 2024 states this work was reraised to a different contractor who attended on 31 October 2023. A further inspection was completed on 5 January 2024. This noted the overall assessment of the wiring as satisfactory.
  2. The landlord’s revised final response explained that 3 electrical inspections had been completed and all noted the wiring was satisfactory. It stated that it had ruled out a wiring issue, and the resident would need to identify which appliance was causing the electrics to trip out. The landlord’s response here was reasonable given that it had checked the electrical wiring on 3 separate occasions during the complaint period. It was entitled to rely on the opinion and results of the investigations by its contractors. However, there was a delay of 8 months between the landlord instructing the electrical test in February 2023 and this being carried out in October 2023. This delay caused the resident inconvenience and frustration while she continued to follow up on this matter.

The radiator in the hallway and thermostats.

  1. The landlord raised works to fix a leaking radiator in the hallway, change the thermostats in the bedroom and living room, and a filter on the tap on 15 November 2021. This work was completed on 9 February 2022. This was a timeframe of almost 3 months. It was evident this repair took too long.
  2. The resident told the landlord in her complaint on 14 February 2022 that in order for the radiator in the hallway to work she needed to keep the valve at 6, and she had to turn the thermostats high for radiators to turn on. Following a surveyor visit to the property in January 2023, the landlord raised works to the radiators in the lounge and bedroom without TRVs on 8 February 2023. It was not clear when this work was completed. The landlord failed to acknowledge or raise this repair within a reasonable timeframe. It raised this almost a year after the resident had reported further concerns about the matter in her complaint.
  3. In its final response on 5 January 20234 the landlord said it raised repair jobs following the resident’s reports of outstanding issues with the radiators on 25 October 2023. A contractors report from a visit to the property on 30 October 2023 noted a new repair issue to the hallway radiator due to a seized TRV that needed replacing. The landlord appropriately raised works for this repair on 1 November 2023.The landlord completed the repair on 5 December 2023. It was noted the timeframe for repair was impacted by a missed appointment for which the landlord offered £20 compensation in line with its compensation policy for missed appointments.
  4. The landlord advised in its revised stage 2 response that it had raised a further job to its contractor to rebalance the radiators in response to the resident’s query about the radiator valve settings. This was an appropriate action to take and the landlord’s repair records showed this was completed on 12 February 2024. However, it was noted the resident had raised her concerns about this in her initial complaint. While it was evident work was undertaken to the radiators during the complaints process, the landlord had failed to fully resolve the issue for the resident and the repairs were also delayed. She had to take the time and trouble to continue to report this.

Silicone and skirting.

  1. The resident raised in her complaint in February 2022 that the completion of a repair to silicone around the windows was not finished. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the works to the silicone, skirting and ledge were completed on 4 April 2022. In her complaint escalation on 11 May 2022, he resident said the repair was incomplete. The landlord raised further work for this this on 15 July 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it completed works to the silicone and skirting in March 2023. This was over a year after the resident had raised the outstanding issue as a complaint. The landlord had unreasonably delayed in completing this work.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 10 January 2024 that the skirting was replaced but the joints were not siliconed. In its revised stage 2 response, the landlord said its operative would provide a comment on the scope of work completed and any further repairs required. This was an appropriate action to take for the landlord to inspect the works completed. On 15 February 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that a carpenter had been asked to look at the skirting on 9 April 2024. However, it was not clear if this was completed or any further works raised.

Taps, shower hose, and pipes.

  1. A contractor’s report on 9 February 2022 noted an issue with the hot water to the bathroom tap. The resident raised this in her complaint in February 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said a plumber attended and resolved the issue. In her complaint escalation, the resident said the issue with the pressure and temperature was not resolved. She raised this again in November 2022 and said an engineer had attend her property for the loss of hot water and stated this was due to the incorrect taps.
  2. The contractor completed the installation of the replacement tap on 19 December 2022. This was over 10 months after the taps had been identified as causing an issue with the hot water. The landlord took too long to resolve this issue for the resident. While this Service acknowledges that repairs can on occasion need more than one repair appointment due to parts required, the landlord should have ensured it kept the resident updated on the process of the repair. It was evident the resident had to take the time and trouble to contact the landlord to find out what was happening with the repair on a number of occasions, and to find out why operatives had not returned to the property. The landlord did not demonstrate a customer focused approach here.
  3. The repair had involved a new shower hose. The resident reported this was not flexible enough to go behind the taps. On 3 January 2023, the landlord advised that the shower head hose fitted was fit for purpose and it would not be changed to meet the resident’s expectations. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it would only look at repairing the hose if it affected the functionality of the shower. The landlord’s response here was in line with its repairs policy which states it is not responsible for replacing shower heads and hoses.

Kitchen cupboards.

  1. It was evident the repairs to the kitchen cupboards were raised by the landlord on 11 September 2023 following a report that the doors and hinges were broken. The landlord’s repair records noted the repair was completed on 14 September 2023. The landlord’s final response confirmed it reattended to repair these on 30 October 2023 following an email received from the resident on 25 October 2023. The landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable action in response to these repair reports during the complaints process.
  2. The landlord arranged further an appointment to assess any further repairs on 23 February 2024 following the resident’s email on email on 10 January 2024 advising that the hinges had fallen off. This was an appropriate action given that the resident had confirmed this was following a previous repair. However, it was not clear from the evidence provided if this issue has now been fully resolved.

Windows and doors.

  1. In her complaint escalation in May 2022, the resident said she was unable to open the windows without having to put something in between because they slammed shut in the wind. In its final response, the landlord said an inspection of the windows and door took place on 13 December 2023. The inspection found no repairs were needed for the windows or health and safety concerns noted during the visit or from job records. As such no repairs were raised. It is also noted a contractor report on 30 October 2023 stated the windows were in a satisfactory condition. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspections of its staff and contractor. Therefore, its response here was reasonable. However, the landlord had delayed in completing an inspection of the windows. As a result, the resident had to continue to raise this matter with the landlord.
  2. Following the resident’s further concerns about the windows in her email to the landlord on 10 January 2024, the landlord said it was raising a further visit to assess if any solutions could be completed to allow the windows to stay open. This was an appropriate action in consideration that the resident did not consider the mater was resolved.
  3. In her complaint escalation, the resident reported that pests, drafts and smells were entering her property under the front door. The resident told the landlord works had been agreed following its surveyor visit on 4 January 2023 to put a draft excluder on the door. It is not clear when this work was completed. It was evident further works were ordered to address the gap in the bottom of the door on 8 November 2023 and competed on 13 December 2023. The resident confirmed to the landlord in an email on 10 January 2024 that the landlord had attended on 13 December 2023 to assess this but she had not been updated. While it was evident the landlord attempted repairs, it delayed in fully resolving the issues for the resident. It is not clear if any further repairs were identified and completed following the end of the complaints process.

Conclusion regarding the multiple repair issues at the property.

  1. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion. It was evident this did not happen following the resident’s reports of repairs. The resident had to continue to contact the landlord to follow up on repairs. She also endured a high number of repair appointments.
  2. It was evident that a number of works had been ordered during the complaint period but a number of these remained incomplete or outstanding. The landlord failed to retain an adequate oversight of the repairs and as a result the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up on these over a period of 27 months. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience for the months she had been experiencing the issues. It also acknowledged that its communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered to the resident more swiftly.
  3. To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord acknowledged its delays here in completing repairs. The landlord attempted to resolve the issues in the substantive complaint relating to repairs within its total amount of compensation of £1130 for the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort as well as £20 for a missed appointment and £50 for a service failure relating to a job raised. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue.
  4. While the offer of redress made by the landlord showed good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation did not go far enough to account for the delays here. The delays had a detrimental impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home for a period of over 2 years. This Service recognised that parts of the repairs were completed during the complaints process, and a number were additionally raised during this time. However, the resident’s concerns about condensation and the full repairs to the ventilation system still remained outstanding at the end of the complaints process. Furthermore, the resident had reported the damp and mould has reoccurred again since and the issue with ventilation system remains unresolved. The landlord here failed to rectify the case of the condensation it had identified during the complaints process.
  5. In summary, the resident experienced delays to the repairs she reported to the landlord. She also experienced the distress and inconvenience of facilitating a high number of repair appointments, including cancelled appointments. The landlord attempted to put this right through an offer of compensation. However, this was not enough to account for its full failures here. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports. A total amount of £1200 of compensation has been ordered. This compensation replaces the elements of the landlord’s compensation offer related to the repair failures it had acknowledged during the complaints process.
  6. This takes into account the length of time, the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property and the inconvenience of having to chase and complain to the landlord during this time. This was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused and was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Remedies guidance. While the landlord had taken some action here to out things right and acknowledged its failures, it had not fully acknowledged the impact of the delays in completing the works, or its failure to consider the reported vulnerabilities within the household. 
  7. Furthermore, it was not clear from the evidence provided to this Service the outcome of the further investigations and subsequent repairs stated in the landlord’s revised stage 2 response. In was a concern that the resident has reported the repairs remain outstanding to date. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property, to identify any outstanding repairs, and provide the resident with a timescale for the completion of these in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests at the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policies says it will deal with all pests in directly managed tenanted sheltered and supported accommodation and registered care homes, in all landlord managed communal areas internal and external (bin stores), in temporary accommodation, in all situations where it has been served an environmental health notice or a notice under the Housing Health and Safety Ratings Scheme, where the resident is vulnerable in line with its Vulnerable Residents policy, and all pharaoh ants, cockroaches, squirrels, and rat infestations within all tenanted homes. It will also deal with mice, fleas, bedbugs and wasps where the resident has been unsuccessful in dealing with the issues themselves or where there is evidence of a wider infestation in the block.
  2. It was not clear when the resident first reported a problem with silverfish to the landlord. On 21 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had received no response from a report about this. She raised concerns about an infestation of silverfish and flies in her complaint in February 2022.  In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to confirm if the silverfish and files were still a problem. There was no evidence of the landlord taking any action or providing the resident with information or advice on the matter prior to this.
  3. The landlord told the resident in an email on 6 July 2022 that it believed the silverfish and flies were due to the damp conditions. However, it did not offer any advice or treatment in the meantime apart from advice on eradicating weevils following a video from the resident in August 2022.
  4. The landlord ordered works for the treatment of silverfish on 10 November 2022 and advised the resident of this on 14 November 2022. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not make reference to it dealing with silverfish, its actions here to arrange treatment was reasonable in consideration that it had concluded the damp conditions were the cause. However, the landlord delayed in taking action for over a year from the resident following up her report of the problem.
  5. On 21 November 2022, the resident raised concerns about the silverfish treatment and the requirement to vacate her property for 3 hours while it took place, and also that the problem would not be eradicated because of the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a number of works orders for the treatment of silverfish. However, it is not clear if these were completed. The resident told this service in October 2024 that appointments for treatment were made, but operatives had not arrived at the agreed times and the treatment was not able to be carried out. The landlord here has not demonstrated a customer focused approach.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its revised stage 2 response that it had not addressed the resident’s concerns about flies in her property in its final response. It said that it believed this was due to the damp conditions. It said it had arranged for an operative to visit the property and report back on the damp and mould and silverfish. It is a concern the resident had reported to this Service that the issue with pests has not been resolved.
  7. In its revised final response, the landlord offered the resident £50 of compensation as a goodwill gesture for purchasing pest products. It was not clear how much of the total amount offered of £1130 for distress, inconvenience and time related to the pest issue. While the offer of redress made by the landlord showed good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, this service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue to assess this.
  8. The final response while stating it was treating the causes of the damp which it believed was the cause of the pests, it did not provide timescales, or set out what else it could do in the meantime to eradicate or control the pests. It failed here to demonstrate a customer focused approach.
  9. In summary, the resident has experienced pests in her property for a prolonged period of time. The landlord raised treatment for this but its response here was delayed. Furthermore, the treatment arranged was not completed, and the landlord failed to follow up on this. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to report the issue. The unresolved issue with pests caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests at the property.
  10. Total compensation of £450 has been ordered. This is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has adversely affected a resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property, to identify any outstanding repairs relating to pest infestation, and provide the resident with a timescale for the completion of these in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the maintenance of the communal areas.

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy effective from April 2023 says the landlord will carry out regular visual checks to communal areas to ensure communal areas are maintained, kept clean, safe and secure and review the work of contractors and contractor performance. It will publish service standards (or signpost to service standards), cleaning schedules, advertise estate inspections, and provide contact details on noticeboards.
  2. In her complaint escalation in May 2022, the resident reported the cleaning in the communal areas was very basic, and asked when the carpets would be cleaned. The landlord’s final and revised stage 2 response demonstrated that it investigated the issue with the Neighbourhood Lead. It confirmed the blocks were cleaned weekly, and these were signed on the notice board. This was in line with its estate management policy.
  3. There was no evidence of the landlord investigating this concern at the time the resident raised her complaint or providing her with an answer on this until its final response in January 2024. This was 20 months after she had first raised the issue. As such, the landlord failed to resolve this mater for the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. It said the neighbourhood lead had not noted any bad smells when reporting on the resident’s block. It had noted areas of the carpets which needed cleaning and was requesting this to be completed. It said this would help with any reported odour. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns and demonstrated an attempt by the landlord to resolve this issue. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate it investigated this issue within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the maintenance of the communal areas. Compensation of £50 has been ordered to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the parking management.

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy effective from April 2023 says where it is appropriate, it will aim to deliver parking provisions that meet the needs of its residents. It acknowledges that this will not satisfy all residents in its neighbourhoods as demand is often greater than supply. It will carry out regular checks of parking arrangements during estate inspections. These checks will seek to address any problems observed and, where necessary, introduce parking permit schemes, in consultation with residents, and consider the use of external contractors to lawfully enforce parking arrangements where these are in place.
  2. In her complaint escalation in May 2022, the resident asked the landlord why parking space for guests were not available and if a discounted process would be available for visitors of residents.
  3. In its final and revised stage 2 responses in January 2024, the landlord said it was not aware that any discounts would be provided, and the local authority was limiting the number of cars parked in developments. In its revised stage 2 response, it further added that that it was in contact with the parking group within the Tenants and Residents Association and once an agreement was reached all residents would be informed. The landlord demonstrated that it adequately answered the resident’s questions about parking. It provided her with the information it had about the status of the discussions with resident’s about parking at the time of its response, and committed to update her further. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was appropriate and as such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports about the parking management.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about rent and service charges. 

  1. The tenancy agreement states the tenancy is a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy affordable rent. The total rent payable in the tenancy agreement does not include any service charges.
  2. The resident asked the landlord about freezing the rent due to the ongoing external building works. This Service was not provided with information on these works. The landlord advised the resident that rents would not be frozen and the resident would receive compensation due to the disruption. It provided contact details for this, and also explained the updates being provided on the matter. This was reasonable response to this matter.
  3. In its final and revised stage 2 response, the landlord explained the way the resident’s rent increase had been calculated. It explained this was in line with the Rent Standard for affordable rents. It provided a full explanation of how affordable rents were calculated and a breakdown of the calculation of the resident’s rent. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  4. The resident requested a breakdown of service charges. The landlord’s response explained that the property was rented under affordable rent and as such service charges were not part of this rent. In its revised stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the weekly rent was inclusive of any service charges and the cost of charges did not factor in the calculation of the rent figure. It acknowledged that if a breakdown had been provided in the past this was an error. The information provided was in line with the tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s internal correspondence seen by this Service.
  5. The landlord’s responses here were appropriate and transparent. The landlord fully explained the reasons for the rent increase and the reasons why it was not able to provide a statement of service charges. Its explanation was in line with the tenancy agreement. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about rent and service charges.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request. 

  1. The landlord’s website (October 2024) states that resident’s are eligible for its rehousing service if they meet one or more criteria, which include being at immediate risk due to domestic abuse gang related violence, ASB, a hate crime, a significant medical need or disability meaning there is an immediate risk to life, or a wish to downsize.
  2. The resident told the landlord in her initial complaint that she wanted to be rehoused. She asked to be permanently moved in her complaint escalation.
  3. In its final response, the landlord provided the resident with information on rehousing available to her. This included mutual exchange, and the local authority. This information was consistent with the information on the landlord’s website about rehousing and also in a letter sent to the resident on 1 September 2023.
  4. In its revised stage 2 response, the landlord said it had emailed the lettings team to see if the resident’s registration request from August 2023 had been received. It also provided the contact details for this process. The information in its final response and the letter in September 2023 about its rehousing options was inline with the information on its website about its rehousing service. However, there was no evidence that the resident had received a response to her request between raising this in her complaint in February 2022 and the letter on 1 September 2023. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request. Compensation of £25 has been ordered to account for the time and trouble taken by the resident to follow up on this issue during the complaint process.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord will respond within 20 working days of the request to escalate. At both stages if it cannot respond within the timescales, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. The policy says it will provide a detailed explanation if it does not accept a complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, where the stage one response has been issued the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  3. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 14 February 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 May 2022. This was a timeframe of 60 working days. This did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord said this delay was due to it assigning the complaint incorrectly. There was no evidence provided to this Service of the landlord updating the resident on the delay.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 May 2022. The landlord’s records showed it raised this escalation on 23 August 2022. This was a delay of over 3 months. The landlord acknowledged to the resident on this date that the escalation request had been overlooked. The landlord told the resident on 24 October 2022 that the complaint escalation was awaiting allocation and it was currently facing extensive delays with stage 2 complaints. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 October 2023 to confirm the complaint had been allocated for a stage 2 review. This was a timeframe of over 17 months for the complaint to be allocated to stage 2. The delay here was excessive.
  5. The landlord took 419 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process from the resident’s escalation request. This again did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy or the Code. This delay was excessive and resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident. It also delayed the resolution of her complaint and her access to an investigation by this Service. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as well as the frustration of continuing to take the time and trouble to follow up on her complaint during this time. While the landlord responded to the resident’s emails during this time, it did not show that it had proactively updated the resident on the status of her complaint.
  6. The resident raised matters in her complaint escalation about the parking management, communal maintenance, rent, and service charges. These issues had not formed part of the resident’s initial complaint. By the landlord including these at stage 2 of the complaint, the resident missed the opportunity tor these to be investigated at stage 1 prior to a review at stage 2. This was not in line with the Code. The landlord’s intention to act in a resolution focussed manner was clear in its decision to include these additional issues. However, it is important that it notes the importance of ensuring that any issue that has progressed through its complaints process has the opportunity to be reviewed at a second stage.
  7. The landlord failed to address all of the concerns the resident raised in her initial complaint. It did not fully address the issues with pests at stage 1 or the resident’s request to be rehoused. This resulted in a delay in the resolution of these matters for the resident. At stage 2 it did not address the issues raised about flies. This did not comply with the Code.  It was noted the landlord addressed the flies in its revised stage 2 response which was appropriate.
  8. The landlord confirmed at stage 1 that the complaint about the noisy pipes was part of another stage 1 complaint and the resident needed to request an escalation of this if she remained unhappy. In her complaint escalation, the resident said she had requested an escalation. The landlord confirmed in an email on 6 July 2023 that the previous complaint was not part of the current complaint. While this was in line with its complaints policy, it also said the resident needed to raise this with the previous complaint handler. While it was reasonable for the landlord to separate the complaint, it should have actioned this internally given that the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction. The landlord’s action here to direct the resident to contact another member of staff was not customer focused. It should have raised this internally for the resident. It is not clear if the resident has received a response to her escalation request in regard to this complaint. As such a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this complaint if it has not already done so.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s complaints process took too long. This was not in line with the timescales in its complaints policy or the Code. This resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, both delaying the resolution and her access to an investigation by the Service. The landlord acknowledged its delays and offered compensation of £280 in an attempt to put things right. However, the compensation offered by the landlord did not go far enough to account for the excessive delays. The resident experienced the distress and inconvenience of waiting for a response over a prolonged period while following up on her complaint. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handing. A total amount of £400 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £280 already offered by the landlord during the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failings have adversely affected a resident and the offer to put things right was not proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the maintenance of the communal areas.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the parking management.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response the resident’s request for information about rent and service charges.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response the resident’s transfer request.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £2125. This amount includes the £1530 of compensation offered during the complaint process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £1200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
    2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the maintenance of the communal areas.
    4. £25 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request.
    5. £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  3. The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the property to identify any outstanding repairs to include but not limited to the ventilation system, pest infestation, damp and mould, kitchen cupboards, skirting and silicone, door, and windows, if it has not already done so. The landlord is to provide the resident with the expected timescale for the completion of any works identified in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

  1. The landlord to provide the resident with the £100 decorating voucher as previously offered, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household to ensure its records are accurate.
  3. The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process through to the completion of a repair.
  4. The landlord to contact the resident about her escalation requests for complaints about the noisy pipes and heating and hot water.