Orbit Group Limited (202226862)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202226862
Orbit Group Limited
30 September 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Handling of the resident’s rent arrears.
- Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
- Handling of repairs to a toilet.
- Complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant. His tenancy agreement with the landlord started in February 2014. The property is a 1 bed flat. The resident has mental health conditions.
- The resident fell into rent arrears in October 2018. The landlord brought court proceedings for non-payment of rent. The court struck the application out as the landlord did not file disclosure documents on time. Following this, the landlord recommenced its engagement with the resident regarding the arrears. On 12 February 2022, the landlord issued a notice seeking possession (NOSP). This is formal notification that the landlord intends to start possession proceedings.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2022 to advise that he had received the NOSP. He proposed paying an additional £8 per month towards his arrears. The landlord rang him but he did not answer. It left a voicemail and sent a text message to ask the resident to get in touch so it could discuss this further with him. The resident responded on 1 April 2022 by email. He asked the landlord to explain in writing to him if £8 per month was not acceptable. He said, “telephone calls will not be accepted.” On 5 April 2022, the landlord responded by email and asked the resident to confirm his date of birth. It said it needed to check this for data protection reasons before it could disclose financial information via email. The resident did not respond.
- Between 10 June and 16 November 2022, the landlord rang the resident 5 times. He did not answer so it left a voicemail and sent a text message each time asking that he get in touch. On 16 November 2022, it applied for third party deductions to be made to the resident’s Universal Credit payments. The deductions would be used to pay off the arrears balance.
- On the same day, 16 November 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord (Complaint A). He said he had asked it on more than one occasion to write to him to explain why it was not content with the repayments he was making. He received no acknowledgement of the complaint. He referred the complaint to his Member of Parliament (MP) on 16 November 2022. He explained that he was not happy with the landlord’s decision to apply for third party deductions from his Universal Credit. He said it was “unreasonable during a cost of living crisis.” The MP referred the complaint to the landlord.
- On 24 November 2022, the resident sent 2 further complaint emails to the landlord:
- The first complaint (Complaint B) was about the conduct of staff within tenancy services. The resident had received information from the landlord as part of a subject access request. Having reviewed this, he complained that staff had provided false information to other organisations, including the Ombudsman, regarding an antisocial behaviour case he was involved in. He said the staff were “imagining patterns and making false claims about me using my sexuality as a reason to get a move. I believe this is homophobic.” He also complained about the general tone of the landlord’s email correspondence. He said it, appeared to show “sarcasm and annoyance” with him and the issues he had raised throughout. The resident added that he believed that this showed the landlord had treated him “unfairly” and failed to take the issues “seriously.”
- The second complaint (Complaint C) was that the landlord had delayed in fixing his toilet. On 10 November 2022 he reported it was not flushing. The landlord did not carry out the repair until 22 November 2022. It then had to return the following day and carry out a second repair as the toilet was leaking. The resident said the delay in repairing the flush and the need for 2 appointments was not acceptable.
- The landlord did not send the resident an acknowledgement of Complaints B or C. The resident therefore sent them to his MP. The MP referred them to the landlord on 30 November 2022.
- The landlord issued a stage 1 response letter to Complaint A on 30 November 2022. It sent the response to the MP rather than the resident. It said it had attempted to contact the resident to assess his financial situation and set up an acceptable agreement. However, he did not write back or return calls. The landlord therefore made the Universal Credit application to offset the arrears balance. It said it would cancel the application to allow further time to liaise with the resident and come to an agreement. It indicated it would contact the resident by email as this was his preferred communication method. It said that if it was unsuccessful in making contact or reaching an agreement with the resident, it would reapply to Universal Credit for third party deductions.
- On the same day, 30 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He complained that it rang him the day before to discuss his arrears and this caused him to have a panic attack. He said he believed the landlord was, “wilfully ignoring” his mental health problems and “attempting to cause deliberate alarm and distress.”
- On 1 December 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to complaints B and C. The landlord also addressed the issue of the arrears raised in Complaint A again. It said:
- Rent arrears (Complaint A) – it had written to the resident on 29 November 2022. This letter explained why it made the Universal Credit application. It stated it would cancel the application and it would resume attempting to contact the resident.
- Staff conduct (Complaint B) – it had reviewed information held on its system. There was no information recorded in connection with the resident’s sexuality. There was no evidence that the landlord made any decisions with reference to his sexuality. There was no evidence to support his comments that the landlord was discriminating against him.
- Toilet repair (Complaint C) – its systems indicated the resident requested a repair to his leaking toilet on 22 November 2022. There was a delay in fixing the toilet. The first repair was unsuccessful so a second appointment was required. It offered the resident £80 compensation for this. It said it had provided feedback to its contractor.
- The resident asked to escalate the complaint on the same day the stage 1 response was issued. He said:
- Rent arrears (Complaint A) – he had not received the letter of 29 November 2022 regarding the rent arrears. He said the landlord continued to “ignore” his mental health problems and refused to make reasonable adjustments and write to him instead of calling him. He did not accept he had not responded to the landlord.
- Staff conduct (Complaint B) – the landlord had not fully investigated this complaint.
- Toilet repair (Complaint C) – the complaint response made no reference to the toilet not flushing. It referred only to the leak. The leak occurred after the repair to the flush was carried out.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 8 December 2022. However, it did not provide a stage 2 response. The resident raised this with his MP. The MP chased the landlord for a response on at least 3 occasions in December 2022 and January 2023. The resident then referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. With our intervention, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord said:
- Rent arrears (Complaint A) – it could not engage on this aspect of the resident’s complaint as there was a pending legal issue relating to the matters raised. It reminded the resident that it was essential he fulfil his financial obligations to make timely rent payments.
- Toilet repair (Complaint C) – it was sorry there was a 12 day delay in repairing the toilet flush. It offered the resident £80 compensation for the delay in repairing this. It provided feedback to its contractor and it would use this in performance reviews.
- The landlord did not refer in its stage 2 response to Complaint B regarding the conduct of staff in the tenancy services team. It referred to an enquiry from the resident about “alternative methods of sending documents related to tenancy services.” It explained how the resident could securely send documents by post.
- The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He asked that we include a review of the landlord’s complaint handling within our investigation.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears
- The resident is required under the tenancy agreement to pay rent to the landlord. If he does not, or if he falls into arrears, the landlord is entitled to take action to recover the debt. In doing so, it must comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords (the Protocol).
- The Protocol recognises that it is in the interests of both landlords and tenants to ensure that rent is paid promptly and that difficulties are resolved, wherever possible, without court proceedings. It sets out a number of steps that landlords should take before initiating legal proceedings. These include the following:
- In the first instance, a landlord, “should contact the tenant, as soon as reasonably possible, to discuss: the cause of the arrears; the tenant’s financial circumstances; the tenant’s entitlement to benefits; and repayment of the arrears.”
- The landlord and tenant should try to agree affordable sums for the tenant to pay towards the arrears. This should be “based upon the tenant’s income and expenditure (where such information has been supplied in response to the landlord’s enquiries).”
- The landlord should provide, on a quarterly basis, rent statements in a comprehensive format.
- The landlord should apply for arrears to be paid through deductions from the tenant’s benefits.
- The landlord should consider any vulnerabilities at an early stage. This includes a consideration of whether or not any issues arise under the Equality Act 2010.
- The resident fell into rent arrears in October 2018. The landlord brought formal court proceedings but these were struck out as it did not file disclosure documents on time. Following this, the landlord recommenced its engagement with the resident regarding the arrears. In response to a NOSP issued in February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to propose a payment of £8 per month towards the arrears. This demonstrated that the resident wished to work with the landlord to resolve the matter. The landlord therefore reasonably decided not to proceed with the formal legal proceedings at that time. It instead attempted to engage with the resident to agree a repayment plan. In order that it could assess how much the monthly repayment should be, it asked the resident to complete income and expenditure forms.
- In March 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone to discuss the arrears and the forms it required the resident to complete. As he did not answer, it left a voicemail and sent a text message asking that he get in touch. It followed this up 3 days later with a letter. The resident responded by email 10 days later. He said that the landlord should write to him if his proposal of £8 per month was not acceptable. He stated that “telephone calls will not be accepted.” He did not explain that this was a request for a reasonable adjustment due to his mental health issues.
- The landlord responded by email and asked the resident to confirm his date of birth. It said this was a data protection requirement and it would be unable to correspond with him via email until he confirmed this. The landlord therefore demonstrated a willingness to engage with the resident by email. However, it appropriately identified that it must first carry out data protection checks before continuing to correspond in this way. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded. This meant that the landlord could not communicate with him by email about his rent account. It was therefore reasonable that in the months that followed, it attempted to ring the resident. It left voice messages and sent text messages asking that the resident get in touch. It also sent a further formal letter in June 2022 indicating that it would seek possession if the matter could not be resolved.
- The landlord decided in November 2022 to apply to for third party deductions from Universal Credit. As outlined above, this action is a recommended step in the Protocol. The decision was made by the landlord after attempts at contact with the resident had been unsuccessful. It was an action that served the best interests of the resident, as the alternative would have been for the landlord to instigate legal proceedings. As per the government’s guidance for landlords on rent arrears, “Third party deductions act as a safety-net to protect claimants when they have debts for essential household bills. They are only taken when it is in the interest of the individual or family, for example to prevent severe hardship caused by eviction and homelessness.” It was therefore appropriate that the landlord applied for third party deductions.
- The landlord received the resident’s initial complaint about its decision to apply for universal credit deductions via his MP. It therefore issued a stage 1 response to the MP on 30 November 2022. In this letter the landlord explained that it had attempted to contact the resident to assess his financial situation and set up an acceptable agreement. The application to Universal Credit was only made because he did not write back or return the calls. The landlord agreed however to cancel the application to allow further time to liaise with the resident and come to an agreement. Given that it had been attempting to contact the resident without success for several months by this stage, it was under no obligation to withdraw the application. That it said it would do so demonstrated the landlord wished to reach a resolution that would be fair and acceptable to the resident.
- Having received the resident’s complaint correspondence, the landlord agreed it would communicate with the resident in writing in relation to his arrears. It appropriately recognised that it was reasonable to make this adjustment in line with the Equality Act 2010 given the resident’s mental health issues. It sent a letter to the resident in December 2022. It asked the resident to complete and return an income and expenditure form in order that an agreement for repayment could be reached. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date to advise that it had sent the letter. In January 2023, the resident sought support from a local law centre. The law centre engaged with the landlord on the resident’s behalf. As a result, an agreement was reached in June 2023 for the repayment of the arrears.
- Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears. The landlord was entitled under the tenancy agreement to take action to recover the debt. In doing so, it adhered to the Protocol and tried to informally resolve the matter. It made reasonable attempts to accommodate the resident’s request to put all communications in writing. However, when the resident did not provide the information requested via the written communications, it was reasonable that the landlord followed this up with phone calls. It decided to apply for Universal Credit deductions as an alternative action to instigating formal legal proceedings. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to cancel the application and to continue to attempt to engage with the resident. Its actions in handling the resident’s rent arrears were overall fair and reasonable.
- The Ombudsman understands that the resident did not adhere to the repayment agreement made in June 2023. The resident has complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord continues to ring him to discuss the arrears. He is unhappy that it is not honouring the agreement, referred to in the 2022 complaint response, that it would contact him in writing regarding rent arrears. The Ombudsman has not investigated this recent contact as it occurred after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. It therefore falls outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy, he may make a further formal complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of his rent arrears. We recognise, however, that a reasonable adjustment does not take precedence over the landlord’s right under the tenancy agreement to recover rent arrears. For the adjustment to be effective, it requires the cooperation of both the landlord and the resident. If the landlord writes to the resident and he does not respond, or if he responds but does not provide the information requested, it is reasonable that the landlord may then attempt to call him. The alternative would be for the landlord to initiate formal legal proceedings.
- It is recommended that the landlord keeps an accurate record of any reasonable adjustments agreed with the resident. The landlord should only deviate from any agreed communication methods where necessary. Before doing so, it should give the resident advance warning through his preferred communication method. For example, it could issue an email to warn him that if he does not respond by a certain date, it will call him to discuss the matter. It should keep accurate records that show why it has decided to communicate with the resident other than in writing. This is in both the resident’s and the landlord’s best interests. It will demonstrate that any deviation was a conscious decision, rather than an oversight that a reasonable adjustment was in place.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
- When making his complaint about the conduct of staff in tenancy services, the resident suggested that the landlord had discriminated against him on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The Ombudsman does not investigate allegations of discrimination. Section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, states the County Court has the jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. As such, this Service cannot make a binding decision that discrimination has occurred. We have advised the resident that he should seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue a discrimination claim. Advice services that may be able to assist him include Citizens Advice or the Equalities Support and Advisory Service.
- While the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether there was any discrimination, we can consider whether the landlord gave the resident’s complaint due consideration and provided a fair response.
- As part of its stage 1 complaint investigation, the landlord reviewed its internal records to determine whether:
- There was any information recorded by the landlord regarding the resident’s sexuality.
- There was any evidence his sexuality had been a consideration in any decisions taken by the landlord.
- This was a reasonable course of action as the resident complained that the landlord’s staff had made homophobic comments and discriminated against him due to his sexual orientation. It was appropriate that the landlord explained to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it had found no evidence to support these allegations.
- The landlord’s response did not, however, address the resident’s complaint that it had supplied false information to other organisations or about the general tone of the landlord’s email correspondence.
- Where a resident reports inappropriate behaviour from a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to verify the resident’s reports and to take appropriate action if required. In this case however it appears that the landlord only reviewed its interactions with the resident through the narrow lens of discrimination. If it did review the wider issues raised in the resident’s complaint, it should have told him this in its complaint response. By not doing so, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigation into all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
- The resident said when escalating his complaint that the landlord had not fully investigated his concerns about staff conduct. However, despite the resident pointing out the limitations of the stage 1 response, the landlord failed to provide any further response to the staff conduct complaint. This will be considered in more detail in the complaint handling section below as it represented a complaint handling failure.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the serious reports made of discrimination. However, it did not respond to the resident’s other concerns regarding the provision of information and tone of its communications. Given this, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.
- Residents are required to raise any complaints within 12 months of the incident complained about occurring. Therefore, if the landlord had reviewed the provision of information to other organisations and its tone in correspondence, it could reasonably have limited it to the 12 month period prior to the complaint being made. On that basis, the landlord is ordered to review the accuracy of the information it provided to other organisations and the tone of its correspondence between November 2021 and November 2022. It should refer to the issues raised by the resident in his original complaint email of 24 November 2022. It should then provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident outlining its review findings. If he is unhappy with the findings, he may request a stage 2 review.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet
- In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the toilet in full repair and working order. The resident reported that the toilet would not flush on 10 November 2022. The landlord appropriately categorised this as an emergency repair. It was required to carry out the repair within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy. It was 12 days before it carried out the repair. This meant that it failed to fulfil its statutory repair obligations, its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, and it did not adhere to its own policy.
- The landlord attended the property and fixed the flush on 22 November 2022. As soon as it left the property, the resident reported that the toilet was leaking. The landlord returned the next day and fixed the leak. Its records indicate that this was within 24 hours of the leak being reported. The landlord therefore adhered to the timeframes set out in its repairs policy when attending to the leak.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred only to the leak. It stated that this was not repaired within 24 hours. This was inaccurate as the delay was in attending to the flush, not the leak. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there was a 12 day delay in repairing the flush. It acknowledged that 2 appointments were required to fully repair the toilet. It apologised and offered the resident £80 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view this was an appropriate level of compensation. Our remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 – £100 for a service failure of this nature.
- The landlord indicated in both complaint responses that it had provided feedback to its repair contractor. It said it would refer to the repair when carrying out future performance reviews. The landlord therefore demonstrated an intention to learn from the complaint in order to improve future service delivery.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s complaint about the toilet repair.
- Over a year later, in December 2023, the landlord carried out further repair works to the toilet due to another leak. The resident raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair. The complaint was referred to the Ombudsman and we investigated this in a separate report (case reference 202324425). We determined in August 2024 that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the repairs in 2023. We recommended that the landlord contact the resident to check there were no further problems with leaks. Given this, no further recommendations are made in this report concerning the toilet repairs.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy requires stage 1 complaints to be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. A response must be provided within 10 working days after that. If an extension to this deadline is needed, an explanation must be given to the resident along with a timeframe indicating when the stage 1 response will be issued. Extensions must not exceed a further 10 working days without agreement. Stage 2 requests must be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days of receipt, with responses given within 20 working days. Extensions to this deadline must not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. The extension should be discussed and agreed with the resident. These timeframes align with the timeframes in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The resident did not receive an acknowledgement when he initially sent his 3 complaints directly to the landlord on 16 and 22 November 2022. The landlord only acknowledged these Complaint A was provided in a letter to the MP dated 30 November 2022. A further stage 1 response was issued on 1 December 2022 to Complaints A, B and C. The stage 1 response was therefore issued within the 10 working day target time. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged the resident’s escalation request which was received on 1 December 2022. However, it then failed to provide a stage 2 response. The response was issued 6 months later following the Ombudsman’s intervention. The landlord has not explained to the resident or the Ombudsman why there was such a significant delay. It offered no apology to the resident once the stage 2 response was finally issued. This was inappropriate.
- There were a number of ways in which the content of the landlord’s complaint responses did not adhere to the requirements of the Code. These are as follows:
- The stage 1 response contained factual inaccuracies. The landlord stated that it sent a letter to the resident on 29 November 2022. The letter was in fact dated 30 December 2022 and was sent to the MP as she had raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The stage 1 response also stated that after the toilet leak was fixed, a further repair was required. This was incorrect as the leak was the second repair. The first repair was to the flushing system. The stage 1 response did not refer to this or acknowledge it took 12 days to repair. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for this delay in its stage 2 response, hence the finding of reasonable redress in relation to the toilet repair. However, the landlord did not acknowledge in its stage 2 response that there were inaccuracies in its stage 1 response.
- The landlord only responded to the concerns about discrimination in its stage 1 response. As outlined above, it did not address the resident’s wider concerns regarding the conduct of staff in tenancy services towards him. The resident said in his escalation request the landlord had not fully investigated this. However, the landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response. It provided no indication at stage 2 that it had reviewed this part of its stage 1 response. The Code requires landlords to carry out a thorough complaint investigation at both stages and to fully respond to all aspects of a complaint. The landlord failed to do this in relation to the staff conduct aspect of the complaint.
- The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was unable to discuss the complaint about its handling of rent arrears due to a “pending legal issue”. However, the resident advised this Service that there were not any ongoing legal proceedings. We asked the landlord to provide further information. It confirmed that its income collection team had not initiated any legal proceedings at the time of the stage 2 response. It was unable to explain why reference to such proceedings was included in the stage 2 response. It said this was due to staff absence. This suggests the landlord did not have records on its complaints file showing how decisions were reached during the stage 2 investigation. The landlord therefore did not adhere to the record keeping requirements of the Code. It states that landlords should keep a full record of the complaint and the outcomes at each stage. This includes correspondence, both internal and external, and “any relevant supporting documentation.”
- The landlord’s refusal to engage on the rent arrears aspect of the complaint appears to have been based on inaccurate information regarding ongoing legal proceedings. While the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in relation to the substantive issue of the landlord’s handling of the arrears, there was a complaint handling failure in its response to the resident on this issue.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord significantly delayed in issuing the stage 2 response but did not explain why. Its complaint responses contained some inaccuracies. It did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It therefore failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code. Given this, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to a toilet.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders and recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should make the apology.
- Pay the resident £500 compensation as follows:
- £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
- £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Review the accuracy of the information it provided to other organisations about the resident, and the tone of its internal and external correspondence, between November 2021 and November 2022. It should refer to the issues raised by the resident in his original complaint email of 24 November 2022. It should then provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident outlining its review findings. If he is unhappy with the findings, he may request a stage 2 review.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord keeps an accurate record of any reasonable adjustments agreed with the resident. The landlord should only deviate from any agreed communication methods where necessary. Before doing so, it should give the resident advance warning through his preferred communication method. It should keep accurate records that show why it has decided to communicate with the resident other than in writing.
- If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the £80 compensation contained within its stage 2 response dated 1 June 2023. This related to its handling of a toilet repair in November 2022. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in relation to that complaint is on the understanding that the offer of £80, if not already paid, remains valid.