Peabody Trust (202318960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318960

Peabody Trust

7 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs and reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. A move to temporary accommodation.
3. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
4. Concerns regarding damage to personal items/property.
5. The resident’s complaints and the amount of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of her concerns regarding staff conduct are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.a. states we may not investigate complaints made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. From the information we have seen, the resident raised concerns over operatives using her toilet while she was living in temporary accommodation. However, this did not form part of the complaint raised in June 2023, or that was escalated to stage 2 in December 2023.
We note this behaviour is referred to in a further complaint raised in March 2024 (regarding a visit from a contractor, landlord reference 1034095-N8R3T5). We would advise the resident to complete the landlord’s complaint procedure regarding the new complaint if she remains unhappy with its response.

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, she has said that she first reported concerns about repairs and damp and mould to the resident in 2018. She said she also raised a complaint regarding this in 2019. While we have seen correspondence which shows the landlord did escalate the complaint, we have not seen evidence a final response was ever provided or that an offer of compensation, which the landlord referred to in correspondence, ever materialised.
However, while we have not seen evidence the landlord responded appropriately at the time, we will not investigate this aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling – or response to the repairs – due to the length of time that passed before the resident made her later complaint in June 2023. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not investigate complaints which were not raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising). We will, however, consider the landlord’s response to repair reports made or works raised in the 12 months leading up to the June 2023 complaint.
In her complaints to the landlord, the resident also raised concerns about the effect the delayed repairs and time spent in temporary accommodation had had on her mental health and her son’s academic performance, including his future employment prospects. While the stress of the situation upon the resident’s family is noted, we will not consider these aspects of her complaint.
This is because the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury/illness. Independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence and oral testimony can be provided. We would also be unable to assess whether there is any potential detriment caused by events that have not yet occurred, such as the resident’s son’s employment opportunities.
We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused as a result of any inaction or failings by the landlord.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property since 2008. The resident has advised it is not aware of the resident or her family living with any vulnerabilities.
Records show the landlord agreed to decant the resident (provider her with temporary accommodation) in July 2022 so it could complete repairs in her property. Internal records indicate this was so it could replace her kitchen. Landlord records show the decant referral was stopped in August and October 2022, the latter due to its repairs team not clarifying a start date for works.
In January 2023, the resident moved into temporary accommodation. Records show the booking (and repairs) was originally intended to last 3 or 4 weeks.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2023. She was unhappy with the “lack of action taken by (the landlord) in addressing … dampness and mould” and length of time she had been decanted from her property. She said it had taken 5 years for the landlord to begin repairs and it had failed to provide a “safe and habitable living environment”. She asked for an area manager to be assigned to her case, which she said was in line with the landlord’s policy. She also wanted to be compensated for the “inconvenience, distress and potential health risks” her family had endured.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 22 June 2023. She emailed again on 3 July 2023 to ask that the complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 July 2023. It later contacted the resident to advise she could expect a stage 2 response by 2 August 2023, although it was yet to respond at stage 1.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2023 to raise concerns about outstanding repairs identified during an inspection 5 days earlier, which included the replacement of her windows and the fact that scaffolding had not been taken down. The landlord replied the following day to advise it was satisfied the resident could move back into the property and any remaining repairs could be done while she was in situ. It gave her 14 days’ notice to return home. Records indicate she moved back to the property around 12 July 2023.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing it. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. Regarding the reported damp and mould, it said its records showed the resident had experienced issues since 2018. It was “sorry to hear this”.
2. It was “disappointed…that a long-term solution” had not been provided until “a case was raised to (its) surveying team in September 2022”. It said its contractor had visited on 11 October 2022 and identified a scope of works to resolve the issue. These were agreed. It said the resident asked for repairs to begin in January 2023 and, although it had initially told her works would take 3 weeks to complete, they “regrettably took longer than initially estimated”. As a result, the resident had stayed in alternative accommodation until July 2023. It was sorry she was “unable to reside in (her) home for a long period” and understood this must have been stressful.
3. It was “pleased to see that extensive works were completed” prior to the resident’s return home (these included a damp specialist investigation, a kitchen renewal and boiler replacement).
4. It was sorry some repairs remained outstanding. It said it tried to arrange these but the resident advised she would be away until late September 2023. Its contractor estimated 2 full days would be needed to complete the works but the resident said she could only take 1 day off work. It acknowledged the inconvenience previously caused and the “significant delays” with treating the damp and mould. However, although its contractors could do “most” of the repairs in 1 day, they still needed a second day to complete everything. Its contractor would be in touch to arrange a new appointment. It would oversee the repairs until their completion.
5. It explained it could not allocate an area manager to oversee the damp and mould repairs as that was not their role. It explained that, prior to works being referred to its surveying team in September 2022, repairs would have been raised to its contractors as “general day to day jobs”. It was sorry for poor communication and that she was not kept updated regarding progress.
6. Regarding her concerns about contractors “misusing” her home while works were being undertaken (and damaging a coffee table), it was “sorry to hear…the conduct of the engineers” was not to the standard it expected. It said it would raise this with the contractors and they would investigate things internally. It would not be able to share the outcome of the investigation due to GDPR concerns. In relation to the table, its compensation policy did not allow for awards towards the damage of personal items. It advised she could make a claim against her contents insurance. If she did not have one, it said she could make a liability claim to its own Insurance Team.
7. It acknowledged there had been “some failure in (its) repair service” relating to time taken to find a “long-term fix” for the reported damp and mould. It offered the resident £350 for the time, trouble and inconvenience this had caused. It also offered £150 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
8. It was unable to consider her request to be refunded for costs incurred while she was in temporary accommodation. It said she would need to raise a separate complaint with its Housing Management Team for this to be addressed. It clarified that the compensation it had offered was not “for the period in which (she was) staying in alternative accommodation”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2023, asking it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Her outstanding concerns included:
1. That the landlord initially failed to respond to her stage 1 complaint. Its policy said it should have automatically escalated to stage 2 as a result.
2. The stage 1 response was “factually incorrect and misleading”. Repairs in the scope of works scheduled during the decant were not done.
3. While the response addressed the broken coffee table, the cost of replacing her burglar alarm and sofa had been greater.
4. Although the landlord had acknowledged the resident would only make herself available for 1 day so repairs could be completed, it had maintained 2 were needed. She queried why works had not been completed within the 6 months she was out of the property.
5. The landlord referred to repairs being referred to its Surveying Team in 2022, whereas she said they had been involved in her case since 2018.
6. She wanted to be compensated for “the debacle and…incompetence” her family had been subjected to and for her son’s career prospects being affected. She said he had been an “A student” but had failed his exams, in part due to having to move temporary accommodation several times.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 January 2024. It would review the “multiple ongoing repairs including damp and mould”.
On 9 January 2024 the resident responded to the landlord. She set out the issues she wanted the stage 2 complaint response to address, which included:
1. Repairs had been outstanding for 5 years, rather than being raised in 2022.
2. Repairs had not been completed by the time she was “forced” to return home after spending 6 months in temporary accommodation. These were “significant” repairs, not just snagging issues.
3. Her son’s education and future prospects had been affected by the temporary moves.
4. Damaged property, including a burglar alarm, sofa and coffee table.
5. Windows had not been fixed or replaced despite her being told this would be done during the decant.
6. Is poor communication, record keeping, complaint handling and the behaviour of its staff.
7. The effect the situation had had on her mental health and her son’s health.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2024 to advise the stage 2 complaint response would be delayed due to “capacity” and the case handler leaving the organisation. It would provide its response on by 13 February 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 February 2024. To resolve the complaint, it noted the resident wanted: an area manager to be assigned to her case; all works to be completed to “an excellent standard”; to be paid compensation that adequately reflected the “significant impact and inconvenience (she had) experienced”, with particular reference to the effect the situation had on her son’s exam performance and future prospects. It said it had “fully reviewed” its stage 1 response and relevant policies. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It acknowledged there had been “delays and shortcomings” in addressing the resident’s repair requests. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience the resident and her family had been caused. There had been “lapses in our communication and action”.
2. It would not appoint an area manager to overseen the complaint and remaining repairs. This was in line with its complaint and repair policies. It had previously assigned a property surveyor to “oversee the completion of works” but it acknowledged “not all aspects of the action plan” was fulfilled.
3. It said that repair “plans may need to adapt based on the evolving conditions of (her) home” and cited non-specific “challenges, budget constraints and/or resourcing issues”. It offered its “sincere apologies for any inconvenience” caused and said it was continuing to address “issues of damp and mould in (her) property as swiftly and effectively as possible”.
4. It recognised the “validity” of the compensation request. It had assessed the severity and duration of the situation to reach a “fair and appropriate” amount of compensation. However, it said its compensation procedure did not replace insurance services. It recommended the resident consider a personal injury claim for any “concerns related to health and wellbeing”.
5. Her complaint would remain open at stage 2 “until a comprehensive review of (her) home” was completed by its surveying team and “identified works” were concluded. It would specifically look at “issues within the original scope of works that were not rectified”, including external damp, windows and guttering and list of other repairs the resident provided on 5 February 2024.
6. It would appoint a team coordinator as the resident’s primary point of contact. They would liaise with relevant departments and provide her with “regular email updates” so she did not have to chase it.
7. It would review the case once all repairs had been completed and, if “any additional delays or set-backs” were identified, it would contact her with a “further offer of compensation should this be applicable”.
8. To resolve the complaint, it offered compensation “for the time and effort” the resident put into resolving the issues. It also acknowledged there had been a delay in providing its complaint response and this caused “additional stress and inconvenience”. It offered the resident £2000, which consisted of:
  1. £300 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
  2. £600 in recognition of the resident’s “time, trouble and inconvenience”.
  3. £600 for “discretionary” time, trouble and inconvenience.
  4. £500 “discretionary contribution” towards the replacement of any damaged items.
9. It said the complaints procedure was intended to investigate service failures. If she was unhappy with the final compensation offered, it suggested the resident could contact its Insurance Team and make a personal injury claim. It also said it could not cover the cost of the resident’s damaged items. However, its compensation offer had taken these into account.
On 26 September 2024, the landlord emailed the resident regarding the stage 2 complaint and a request for a review of the compensation it had awarded. It was “unable to proceed” with a review “at this time”. It said this was because repairs were not yet completed. Once these were done, it could “review the entire process holistically” and assess “the full timeline”.
The resident provided us with an update on 19 March 2025. She advised the following:
1. She considered the “situation remains largely unchanged”, aside from the removal of scaffolding from outside her property. She had receive no communication from her landlord since November 2024.
2. Mould had begun to reappear in areas that had been previously treated (which she had been told would be “covered by a 20-year warranty).
3. She was struggling to manage “the constant cleaning required to mitigate the mould” growth in her property.
4. As she no longer believed the landlord would “effectively manage and complete the repairs”, to resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to consider providing new accommodation. She also requested “appropriate compensation” for the distress she and her family had been caused and to “cover the costs for any damages” caused by alleged landlord negligence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs and reports of damp and mould

When a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress it offered “put things right” and resolved the complaint in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
While investigating this complaint, due to the lack of detail within the repair records provided, it has been difficult to ascertain whether the landlord responded appropriately to any repair concerns the resident raised. In our request for information, we asked the landlord to provide all relevant repairs information. However, the records provided only date back to January 2023 and mainly provide details of attempts made to complete repairs after the resident had moved back into her property in July 2023. This is of concern and means the landlord has not been able to evidence many of the repair actions it took, whether these were appropriate, or carried out in a timely manner and in line with its policies. This is a failure and one of the reasons behind our finding regarding the landlord’s record keeping below.
One of the main aspects of the resident’s complaint is that some of the repairs agreed within the scope of works drawn up prior to her move to temporary accommodation were not done. In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to a scope of works being drawn up by its contractor in October 2022. While temporary accommodation was originally approved to allow renewal of the resident’s kitchen, internal correspondence relating to the decant indicates that by September 2022, the resident had said 25 repair issues needed attention. It reasonably decided that a further survey was required. However, we have not seen evidence relating to this survey, nor a list of the works that were agreed.
If the scope of the works expanded between June and October 2022, the landlord should have documented this appropriately. While the resident has consistently maintained that it had been agreed her windows would be replaced, the landlord has said this was not the case. Internal landlord correspondence seen from June 2023 indicates its surveyor was of the opinion the windows did not “warrant” replacement. However, in the absence of any evidence that a window replacement did not form part of the scope of works agreed, it is not able to demonstrate that it acted fairly in this regard. This also applies to the other repairs which were added on to the scope of works above the original order for a kitchen renewal.
Similarly, the repair records seen do not provide any details regarding any assessment of damp and mould in the property, or any treatment that was carried out. Internal correspondence regarding the resident’s return to the property indicates that the repairs were delayed – at least in part – due to the discovery of “severe” damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen. It also cited issues liaising with a private property next door when seeking to resolve this. However, its repair records do not contain any details regarding this at all. We have not seen any evidence regarding a damp and mould assessment, either before or after any works were completed. This is inappropriate.
It was also inappropriate that it did not provide any explanation regarding the delay in its complaint responses. Its stage 1 response simply acknowledged that repairs “took longer” than it initially estimated, while its stage 2 response merely provided a list of generic reasons why works might overrun. This lack of clarity was inappropriate, particularly given the significant length of time the resident was in temporary accommodation beyond the original 3 weeks. The landlord missed an opportunity to show greater transparency and explain whether some of the delay was unavoidable. Again, due to the lack of repair records, it is unable to demonstrate if this was the case or whether some of the delay was in fact due to any service failure. This is a failing.
It was confusing that the landlord said the discovery of damp and mould in the kitchen was a cause of unexpected delay. This is despite its complaint responses appeared to acknowledge the resident’s contention that damp and mould had been reported within her property some time before and acknowledging there had been a “significant delay” in treating the damp and mould (albeit over an unspecified period). Again, its lack of records means it is unable to demonstrate that it responded reasonably or managed the repairs reasonably. It was not clear on which delays it was acknowledging.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £350 for her “time, trouble and inconvenience”. The resident rejected this. It is noted that the landlord’s compensation offer did not appear to specifically relate to any acknowledged repair failings. It cannot show that its offer amounted to reasonable redress as it is not clear what the compensation was meant to address or what failings in particular it thought were worthy of compensation.
Its offer at stage 2 was significantly increased although it remained unclear precisely what it was offering compensation for. It acknowledged “delays and shortcomings” in how it responded to repairs and, on top of compensation relating to complaint handling and items that were reportedly damaged, it offered the resident £1200, made up of £600 for her “time, trouble and inconvenience” and an identical sum for “discretionary time, trouble and inconvenience”. It said the complaint would remain open so it could carry out a review later on which would look at repairs “within the original scope of works that were not rectified”. If it accepted some of the repairs within the scope had not been done, it is unclear why the landlord did not have factor this in to its stage 2 response. While a later case review may well have been appropriate, the final stage complaint response was the proper time for the landlord to acknowledged, and provide redress for, any accepted failings.
As it has not provided a full list of the works that were originally agreed before the resident moved into temporary accommodation, the landlord is not able to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s repair requests or damp and mould reports reasonably. The resident was provided temporary accommodation for 6 months and it has acknowledged that not all repairs were completed in this time. However, it is unclear how many were agreed and not completed, or why they were not completed. The compensation offered vaguely referred to the resident’s “time and trouble”, rather than any specific failings in not completing particular repairs in a timely manner.
As recently as September 2024, the landlord advised it was unable to establish whether any further compensation was due as repairs in the property remained outstanding, over a year after the resident moved back in. We acknowledge that the landlord has at times attempted to book repairs in and the resident has either been unavailable, or unwilling to agree appointments while another complaint was being investigated or until the landlord agreed to pay a certain amount of compensation for each day she needed to take off work to allow access. We also note the landlord took action such as agreeing to use a different repairs contractor due at the resident’s request. However, while welcome, these actions took place after the conclusion of the complaint procedure and cannot be viewed as forming part of any redress offered.
We have therefore made a finding of maladministration by the landlord. It is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified above. It is also ordered to pay the resident an increased amount of compensation that more appropriately reflects the inconvenience caused and its poor handling of the repairs process between June 2022 and February 2024. It is ordered to carry out a review of the case and compile a report which clearly identifies which repairs were agreed in the original scope of works and which were, and were not completed by the time the resident moved back into the property in July 2024. As part of the review, it will assess whether further compensation is warranted for each repair that was not completed. It will share a copy of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation

Records show the landlord originally considered that a decant would be necessary as early as November 2021. However, this was not progressed. It is unclear why this was the case, although this period falls outside of the scope of this investigation. Regardless, the landlord sought to “pick up” the decant in June 2022 and began looking for alternative accommodation for the resident. At this time it noted that works were related to the replacement of her kitchen. The original decant referral indicated works were expected to last around 4 weeks.
From the information seen, the landlord acted reasonably when trying to source accommodation for the resident. In email correspondence seen it engaged with her proactively while also trying to manage her expectations regarding the availability of suitable accommodation in her local area.
From the records we have been provided, the resident’s extended stay in temporary accommodation was down to issues with the repairs service, rather than any failing in how the decant was managed or facilitated. We acknowledge and understand the resident’s frustration with the length of time her family ultimately resided in temporary accommodation and the effect she feels this disruption had on her family, and her son’s education in particular. However, as above we are unable to reach a binding determination on whether the time spent in temporary accommodation caused any detriment to the resident or her family. From the information available, we have not identified any failings with the landlord’s handling of the decant process or provision of temporary accommodation while works were completed. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.

The resident’s concerns damage to personal items

In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor damaging some of her personal items, including a coffee table, and disposing of others, including a burglar alarm. While it referred to these issues in its complaint responses, the resident remained unhappy at its perceived focus on the coffee table, over and above more reportedly expensive items.
We have not seen evidence the resident has provided evidence regarding the damage or disposal of any personal items. However, we have also not seen evidence that the landlord asked for it any time. It did appropriately refer her to its Insurance Team, stating she was entitled to make a claim against its own insurer. It is unclear if she has done so.
While the landlord could have made greater efforts to investigate the issue, it did appropriately signpost her to the relevant department. It also reasonably explained that its compensation policy did not allow for payments to be made towards damaged items. However, it appeared to show flexibility when it offered a “discretionary” payment of £500 in its stage 2 response, related to the items the resident said were damaged/disposed of. In the absence of any evidence from the resident as to the reported value of these items, this appeared to be a reasonable effort by the landlord to address the concerns she raised. Its offer did not appear to be in place of any claim she would be entitled to make against its insurer. Based on the information available, we consider the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation offered

The landlord failed to provide either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses within its target timeframe. It offered compensation for this at both stages, £150 for the 3 month delay at stage 1 and £300 for the 1 month delay at stage 2. Given the stage 1 response was issued further outside the target timeframe, we would have expected the offer of compensation to be similar. This was unreasonable.
As noted above, while the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in dealing with the repairs and addressing damp and mould, its responses were vague and did not make clear what the precise failings it had identified were. It did not say how long it considered the delays to have been. It did not make clear when it thought it should have responded. Its complaint responses acknowledged the resident had reported issues relating to damp and mould prior to September 2022, but then made no effort to investigate what had happened prior to then. If it was not able to do so due to the length of time that had passed, it should have made this clear.
Its offers of compensation were also vague and non-specific. The total amount of redress offered at stage 2 went further in trying to provide redress for the inconvenience and distress the resident had experienced, but it should have provided more detail than simply saying the £1200 (two payments of £600) related to her “time and trouble”. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says landlords should be specific regarding the failures identified and how their offers of redress are meant to “put things right”. The landlord’s complaint responses did neither.
As a result, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation that better reflects the failings in its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The repair records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in their records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.
Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted with the landlord’s record keeping, the resulting impact on its ability to ensure that repairs were completed to an appropriate standard, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the record keeping in this case.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
There is an absence of evidence from the landlord regarding the original scope of works and completion dates of repairs carried out. The resident has advised that most of the repairs that were outstanding when she returned to the property remain outstanding, although the scaffolding has been removed. While the landlord provided further evidence regarding surveys and repair orders raised from July 2023 onwards, it was unable to provide information regarding reports received prior to the resident’s decant, or the original scope of works.
We have therefore relied on the resident’s evidence and other internal landlord records, such as emails and case notes. The poor record keeping in this case has restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right, learn from its mistakes or review its performance.
Given the scale of the record keeping issues the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to make a separate finding of maladministration for the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management, which stresses the importance of good record keeping. This guidance is available on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs and reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of a move to temporary accommodation.
3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints and the amount of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding the resident’s concerns about damage to personal items/property.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about staff conduct is outside jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £1000 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £800 relating to its repairs handling failings and the inconvenience these caused. This is in addition to, not instead of, any previous compensation offered.
  2. £200 to reflect the additional failings identified in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a review of the case and compile a report which clearly identifies which repairs were agreed in the original scope of works and which were, and were not completed by the time the resident moved back into the property in July 2024. As part of the review, it will assess whether further compensation is warranted for each repair that was not completed. It will share a copy of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

The landlord is ordered to re-offer the £2000 offered in its stage 2 response.