Southwark Council (202003065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003065

Southwark Council

1 April 2021

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 refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The outstanding major works to the resident’s kitchen.
2. The replacement of the resident’s carpets following a water leak.
3. The resident’s concerns related to the condition of the property.
4. The resident’s request for a rent and service charge refund for the period when she was living away from the property while it was awaiting repairs.
5. The associated complaint about these matters.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
The resident has advised that she did not consider her property to be in a habitable condition and had vacated the property due to her concerns regarding her child’s safety. She has explained that she did not feel that she should pay rent for the period she had vacated the property. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to decide whether a property was in a state of disrepair as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. The resident would need to make a formal disrepair claim to the landlord if she considers that the property was uninhabitable during this time.
Similarly, in accordance with paragraph 39 (g)complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider. Such matters are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek independent legal advice in relation to how to proceed with a case if she wishes to pursue this matter.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
The resident has advised that the substantive issues have affected her mental and physical health, and she has provided evidence from her doctor to support this.
The landlord was completing major works to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom in March 2020. There was a water leak in the resident’s property in March 2020 from the kitchen leading out into the hallway of the property which the contractor accepted liability for; this led to the carpet needing to be removed in the hallway and airing cupboard. The resident advised the landlord on 12 March 2020 that she was not staying in the property due to the uninhabitable conditions.
The resident provided a quote for her carpet replacement on 21 March 2020 totalling £1463.85; this included a replacement carpet for her living room, hallway, and bedroom. Following this, the landlord put any non-urgent repair works on hold due to the Government restrictions in place because of Covid-19. The outstanding works included the provision of the kitchen unit doors and the replacement of the carpets.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 28 May 2020 and advised that some of the units in her kitchen did not have doors. She also advised that during the major works her carpets in her hallway, front room, and bedroom had been ruined, causing her property to be dusty and damp. She understood that the works had been put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic but expressed concern about when the work would be completed. She also advised that every time she called the landlord she could not get through. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and confirmed that she would receive a response by 18 June 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord and her local MP on 3 June 2020 as she felt waiting until 18 June 2020 was too long. She advised that she was unable to live in the property due to the environment and had not been kept updated as to when the works would progress. She explained that she was not offered temporary accommodation or given an apology for the delay.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 June 2020 over the phone. The landlord sent a follow-up email to the resident advising that its contractors would be visiting the property on 23 June 2020 and would take photos and assess the damaged areas. It confirmed that it did not have a start date for the internal works due to Covid-19 restrictions but once it received the contractor’s report it would update the resident with the next steps.
The resident emailed her MP and the landlord on the same day. She understood the difficulties the landlord faced as a result of Covid-19 but said that she would have appreciated an update as she felt forgotten. She advised that she wished to be compensated as she had been paying rent whilst she had been unable to live in the property. She asked the landlord to provide written confirmation of steps it would take moving forward and a timeline for the proposed works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2020 and explained that very little had been done and there were also issues with her sink and washing machine. She also advised that she had not been given any money to replace her carpets.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 July 2020. She advised that she had been unable to stay in the property due to the severe water damage, dust, and debris left behind after the carpets had been removed. She advised that the works had been delayed with no communication. She wanted the landlord to complete the works to her property as soon as possible and wanted her rent to be refunded for the 19 weeks she had not been residing in the property. She also wanted to be compensated for the stress and anxiety caused during this time.
This Service emailed the landlord on 29 July 2020 and asked it to provide a response to the resident within 15 working days.
The landlord provided a written stage one response to the resident on 18 August 2020 and advised the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that as a result of the damage caused by the leak it was offering to replace the hallway and airing cupboard carpet. It advised that it did not agree that the property was rendered uninhabitable by the leak and therefore was not in a position to arrange temporary accommodation or waive the resident’s rent for this period.
2. Following the unforeseen leak in March 2020, the contractor had taken full responsibility and removed the hallway carpet with the intention of replacing it. When the leak occurred, it expected to have time to complete all works. It provided the resident with a programme of works but unfortunately these were put on hold due to Covid-19. It confirmed that it had written to all residents at the time informing them that all non-urgent repairs had been put on hold.
3. It did not consider the carpet replacement an emergency repair as the original flooring was in place, with no identified hazards. It had confirmed that the floor was dry on 12 March 2020 and had informed the resident that she could stay in the property. At no point had it identified the property to be unfit for habitation. It confirmed that it had visited the property on 17 August 2020 and believed the property to be fit for habitation; it had not identified any damage to the carpets in the living room or bedroom but, as a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered the resident a £50 voucher for any inconvenience caused.
4. The landlord apologised that the carpet samples it had provided for the replacement carpet did not match the colour the resident wanted. It advised that if the resident provided the details of the carpet colour it could potentially source this. It asked the resident to confirm whether she would like the hallway and airing cupboard carpets to be replaced.
5. It confirmed that a contractor had visited the property on 17 August 2020 to assess a leak and the washing machine. The contractor confirmed that they were able to leave the tap running and there were no leaks under the sink. It noted that the resident had advised that the issue had not been resolved and it would ask the contractor to reattend. The contractor had advised that the landlord was not responsible for repairing the washing machine as there was an issue with the pump, which the contractor would not be liable for. This problem would not have been caused by the contractors when they carried out major works in the kitchen.
6. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed that it had followed its procedures when completing the works. It advised that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2020 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. She advised the following:
1. She explained that she was ‘saddened’ and ‘insulted’ by its stage one complaint response and wanted a quick resolution to this matter. She advised that there had been multiple visits to the property with no proper outcome and that her mental health and wellbeing had deteriorated since she had been away from the property.
2. She advised that she had co-operated with the landlord’s instruction to select a carpet of her choice. She had provided a quote to the contractor which included the measurements of the carpets to be replaced.
3. She did not understand how the landlord concluded that her property was in a habitable state. She advised that she could not be expected to live at the property with her young child, who suffered from asthma, with no carpet as there were nails on the floor, dust, and an incomplete kitchen. She advised that she was not willing to risk the health and safety of her child to stay in the property as it currently was.
4. She advised that she felt the £50 was insulting and would do little to help her current situation. She asked the landlord to fully compensate her for the rent and service charges she had paid during the 20 weeks despite not occupying the property. She also asked the landlord to replace the carpets with the ones she had chosen as previously agreed.
5. She advised that the £50 voucher was not enough to replace her washing machine which was working as normal before the major works to her kitchen commenced. She advised that if she knew this would happen, she would not have agreed for any works to be carried out.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2020 and advised that the work to the sink had been completed but the contractors had not completed the works needed to the kitchen cabinets. She again advised that she had not been staying at the property since March 2020 and had been paying rent despite this which she contended was not fair. She said the experience was upsetting and stressful.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 30 September 2020 and advised the following:
1. The landlord detailed the history of the resident’s complaint and confirmed that only the hallway and airing cupboard carpet needed to be replaced due to water damage. It had inspected the carpets in the other rooms of the resident’s property. The decision was that the other carpets did not need to be replaced; whilst they may have been affected by the leak, they were not significantly damaged to warrant a replacement.
2. It agreed that if the resident wished to source the carpet for her hallway and airing cupboard herself, it would be happy to pay for the specific carpet; it would require a quote for the hallway and airing cupboard carpets only.
3. In relation to the kitchen works, the landlord agreed with the stage one complaint response provided in terms of the work being halted because of Covid-19. It explained that it was only carrying out emergency works during the lockdown period and began to complete other works from August 2020. As the kitchen work was being completed by its Major Works team and not its repairs team, this was not a priority to be completed. It appreciated that this may have caused the resident some inconvenience, but it had a responsibility to protect its staff and residents. It confirmed that the remaining works in the kitchen would be carried out as soon as possible.
4. It confirmed that it had ordered the remaining kitchen units from its supplier and had chased for an expected delivery date. So far, its contractors had not been able to provide a specific date. It confirmed that it would continue to follow-up on this matter.
5. It advised that since the property had been left with outstanding works, it had visited on three occasions. During its visits on 23 June, 17 August and 11 September 2020, there had been no concern over whether the property was habitable. The landlord advised that the resident’s choice to leave the property was her own and it would not consider refunding any rent paid during this time. It appreciated the resident had concerns for her child’s safety, but it had not identified any reason which would mean that the property was uninhabitable. Had this been the case it would have offered the resident temporary accommodation, but this was not the case. It noted that the resident’s main concern would be the threshold bars across the doorways; however, these would not pose a significant danger as the carpet grips did not point upwards and were set lower than the bar. It did not believe this to be a reason for the property to be deemed uninhabitable.
6. The landlord advised that it was not able to uphold the resident’s complaint as it had not identified any failings of its policies or procedures. The delays had been caused as a result of Covid-19. It confirmed that the £50 voucher it had awarded for inconvenience was appropriate and it could not offer compensation because the resident was not residing at the property as it did not believe the resident needed to leave her property.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 1 October 2020 and explained that she did not agree with the landlord’s decision that the property was habitable. She advised that the carpets in her living room and bedroom were dark so you could not see the damage, and she expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord would not pay to replace her other carpets. She asked again to be refunded for the rent she had paid during this period.
The resident provided a new quote for her carpet replacement on 3 October 2020. The landlord arranged for the payment of £692.97 to be made to the resident to cover the cost of the carpets for the hallway and airing cupboard.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 December 2020 and advised that the units for her kitchen had originally been ordered on 8 October 2020 and were due to be delivered on 26 October 2020. They arrived on 29 October 2020 and it was discovered that the units would not fit because of fire stopping works which had been carried out since the units were measured. This caused a delay as the units had to be reordered. It confirmed that it could offer compensation based on £10 per week for both the delay and the distress caused over the five-week period from 26 October 2020 to 1 December 2020, an amount of £100 in total. It also acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had spent and offered a further £100. It confirmed that its total offer was £200 in respect of this issue.
The resident responded the same day and advised that £200 was not good enough as she had been waiting since March 2020. She confirmed that the work to the kitchen units was only completed on 1 December 2020. She did not understand the delay as the contractors had installed the same units which they had been installing before the national lockdown.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 December 2020 and confirmed that the offer of £200 compensation was only in relation to the issues experienced between October and December 2020. It advised that its decision from its stage two complaint response had not changed. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2020 and confirmed that she did not feel the compensation amount of £200 was sufficient but that she felt she had no other choice but to accept this.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; however, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues at the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the outstanding major works to the resident’s kitchen.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction in regard to the length of time take to complete the works required to her kitchen units as part of the landlord’s major works programme. This work was placed on hold in March 2020 as a result of the government restrictions put in place because of Covid-19. The landlord’s records show that the work required to the kitchen units was completed on 1 December 2020.
Whilst it is unfortunate that these issues were not resolved sooner, the delay from March 2020 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic were outside of the landlord’s control, and therefore the landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for these delays. The evidence suggests that only the work to the kitchen unit doors was needed and that the resident had an otherwise functional kitchen space from March 2020 onwards.
The delay between June 2020, when the Government restrictions lifted, and October 2020 was reasonable as the landlord provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the resident’s kitchen would not be finished completely at this stage. It explained that it had begun to handle other, non-emergency repairs in August 2020. As the work to the resident’s kitchen was not considered a repair, rather a completion of its major works ‘improvement’ programme, it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise more urgent repair works needed to other properties. There is no evidence to suggest that the lack of work done to the kitchen units had prevented the resident from using her kitchen, although it is acknowledged that the lack of doors would have caused her some level of inconvenience.
The landlord has offered reasonable redress for the further delay in completing works to the kitchen units between October 2020 and December 2020. There was a delay as the required parts had not been delivered by the supplier as expected. It was then established that these parts would not fit the resident’s units as extra work to fireproof the kitchen had not been taken into consideration when measuring the units and as a result the parts needed to be reordered. The work to the kitchen units was completed on 1 December 2020. The landlord has apologised to the resident for this delay, has acknowledged its failure to obtain units that would fit the kitchen, and offered £200 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delay and any distress caused and £100 for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing this matter.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by acknowledging its service failure and offering £200.
The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s carpets following a leak.

The landlord’s Repair Policy confirms that the landlord would be responsible for the floor of the property, although it would not be responsible for repairing or replacing floor coverings, such as carpets. The landlord would not usually be obliged to offer to replace the carpet in the resident’s hallway and airing cupboard following a water leak. However, in this case as a contractor had accepted liability for the leak at the property which caused the damage, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to replace the damaged carpets.
The resident provided a quote for her carpet replacement on 21 March 2020 totalling £1463.85; this included replacement carpets for the living room, hallway, and bedroom. The landlord has advised that due to Covid-19 it was only able to carry out emergency repair works from March 2020 and that the carpet replacement was not considered to be an emergency in line with its repair obligations. An emergency repair would generally be one which is needed to prevent immediate risk to life or significant damage to property. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that the replacement of the carpets was not an emergency.
It was therefore reasonable that the resident’s quote was not considered, as the work was unlikely to go ahead at this stage and the resident was informed of this. The landlord could not have known when the restrictions would be lifted and therefore it could not provide a more detailed update. This period of uncertainty was outside of the landlord’s control.
The resident had argued that the leak had affected her bedroom and living room carpets as well as the hallway and airing cupboard. Following this, the landlord inspected the property on 23 June 2020 to address the damaged areas. Any delay in carrying out an inspection was due to Covid-19 and therefore outside of the landlord’s control, as explained above. The landlord established that the carpets in the resident’s bedroom and living room did not need replacing but acknowledged that the leak had also affected these areas. It offered a £50 voucher as a goodwill gesture in view of the inconvenience this may have caused the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an inspection to assess the damage and it was entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors concerning the work needed following this inspection. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the other carpets in the property needed to be replaced. In line with the Repair Policy, the landlord would not have been obliged to replace the carpets in the living room or bedroom and, as such, its goodwill gesture of a £50 voucher was reasonable, taking into account that there had been some damage to the other carpets, although they did not need to be replaced. It is noted that there was a discrepancy in regard to the colour and quality of the carpet due to be installed following this date, which is likely to have caused a further delay.
In her escalation request, the resident confirmed that she wished to have the carpet replaced, but only with the carpet of her choice. The landlord agreed to pay for the cost of replacing the carpets in the hallway and airing cupboard if the resident could provide a quote for this. The landlord would not be strictly obliged to fit a carpet of the resident’s choice and could have said it would use its own supplier, but it was reasonable for it to agree to the resident’s choice in order to find a resolution.
Once the landlord received the carpet quote from the resident on 3 October 2020, it acted in a timely manner to arrange the payment on 8 October 2020 so that the work could be progressed. It is noted that this payment was not processed immediately as the landlord needed to follow its internal structure for processing payments which was reasonable.
Overall, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the carpet replacement at the resident’s property. The initial delay was outside of the landlord’s control and there had been a further delay due to a dispute over which carpets would be replaced and the choice of carpet. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to pay for a carpet of the resident’s choice, but it was reasonable for it to do so due to the length of time which had passed. The landlord also offered a gesture of goodwill to the resident which acknowledges that there may have been some inconvenience caused by damage to the other carpets, although it did not feel that the other carpets needed to be replaced.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to the condition of the property.

As explained above in the jurisdiction section of this report, whist we cannot assess whether the property was in disrepair in a legal sense or if a rent refund should be offered, The Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord should have considered a temporary decant (temporary accommodation) in line with its policies and if it has given a reasonable explanation for not arranging this. It would be best practice for a landlord to arrange a decant if the property is unsafe to be in and lacks basic facilities such as electricity, bathing facilities, running water etc. Tenants are often expected to remain in their property while repairs are carried out and a decant would not be arranged solely because the property needed a repair.
A lack of carpet would not generally be considered grounds for a decant. This is because changes to the flooring of the property are usually the tenant’s responsibility in line with the landlord’s tenant’s handbook. The landlord would not refuse to allow a tenant to move into a property until they had purchased carpets as the temporary lack of carpets would not be thought to make the property unsafe. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the carpets which were damaged during major works, but this would not automatically mean the property was unsafe because of a lack of carpet.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns related to the condition of the property. The landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the property following the leak and based on this inspection, it advised that it did not feel it was necessary for the resident to vacate the property and, as such, it did not offer the resident a decant. As above, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the property was unsafe, but the landlord acted reasonably by assessing the property and deciding that the resident could remain in place during repairs. If the resident wishes to dispute this, she would be advised to make a formal disrepair claim to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage procedure for handling complaints. At stage one (the complaint phase) the landlord should provide a response within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two (the review phase). At stage two, the landlord should provide a complaint response within 25 working days.
The resident initially raised a complaint on 28 May 2020, the landlord responded on 19 June 2020 and has advised that this was a stage one complaint response. The resident sent further emails expressing her dissatisfaction but had not specifically requested for her complaint to be escalated at this stage. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate with the resident to address her concerns or escalate her complaint as she remained dissatisfied.
The resident then contacted this Service on 14 July 2020 for assistance with her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 29 July 2020 asking it to provide the resident with a response by 19 August 2020. The landlord provided a formal written stage one response on 18 August 2020, which was within 15 working days of the request. At this point it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond with a stage two complaint response as a stage one response had been issued previously over the phone.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 August 2020 and the landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 30 September 2020. This was provided 30 working days after the escalation request. This response was provided five working days outside the landlord’s published timescales for providing a stage two complaint response.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. Following its stage one response on 19 June 2020, the evidence suggests that the resident remained dissatisfied and wanted to be compensated. It would have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to consider this as the resident’s stage two escalation request. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had considered this or provided any further response at this stage, which is likely to have inconvenienced the resident as she was waiting for a response and it was not clear what stage her complaint was at.
Following correspondence from this Service, the landlord provided a further stage one response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a stage two response rather that adding an extra stage one response, so as not to further extend the timeframe of the complaint. The stage two complaint response was issued on 30 September 2020, five working days outside of the landlord’s timescales. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had been made aware of any potential delay in providing a stage two complaint response. Although this delay was not extensive, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to inform her of any delay in providing a stage two complaint response to prevent any avoidable inconvenience or uncertainty.
The landlord has not fully addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage two response. The resident expressed further concern about the replacement of her washing machine and that the £50 voucher would do little to help her with this. Whilst the landlord had previously explained that there was an issue with the pump of the washing machine and that this was not its responsibility to replace, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this matter further in its stage two complaint response in response to the points raised by the resident.
In view of the failure to escalate the resident’s initial complaint and the delay in providing its stage two complaint response, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the outstanding major works to the resident’s kitchen prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the replacement to the resident’s carpet following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns related to the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The initial delay in completing the major works to the resident’s kitchen was caused by restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19 and was therefore outside of the landlord’s control. As the completion of the kitchen was viewed as major works rather than a repair there was a further delay, as the landlord appropriately needed to prioritise repair work after the lockdown restrictions had been lifted. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident that this was the case at the time. Following this, the landlord has acknowledged its service failure in ordering the incorrect units. It has apologised and offered £200 in recognition of the delay, distress, and time and trouble this may have caused, which is proportionate to the inconvenience caused by this issue.
In line with the repair policy, the landlord would not usually be expected to repair or replace the resident’s carpets, although it was reasonable for the landlord to do so in the case as its contractor accepted liability for the damage. As above, there were initial delays as a result of the restrictions in place due to Covid-19 and a further dispute about which carpets should be replaced which prevented action being taken.
This Service cannot determine whether the property was in disrepair as this would be a legal matter. We also cannot consider complaints about the liability to pay rent as this matter is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier tribunal (Property Chamber). The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the resident was not offered a decant during this period and why it considered the property to be habitable; if the resident has further concerns in regard to this, she may wish to seek legal advice on this matter or raise a disrepair claim with the landlord.
The landlord has failed to respond to the resident’s concerns satisfactorily following its initial stage one complaint response. Following this it provided a further stage one complaint response, thereby extending the timeframe of the complaint. There has also been a delay in providing a stage two complaint response which has likely caused the resident some further inconvenience. The landlord should pay compensation in view of this, as set out below.

Orders

62. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

63. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £200 as previously agreed if it has not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s finding that there has been reasonable redress by the landlord was made on the basis of this offer.

64. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with the £50 voucher as previously agreed if it has not already done so.