Southwark Council (202113700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113700

Southwark Council

31 August 2023

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:
1. How the landlord handled ongoing repairs to the residents door entry system between the dates September 2020 to July 2021.
2. How the landlord handled the second complaint about the above initially raised in January 2021.
This service has also considered the landlords record keeping.

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.
The resident has previously brought a separate complaint to this service relating to similar issues with the intercom system serving his property, for which this service has made a determination on. This related to the period up to September 2020. For clarity, though similar in nature, this was a separate complaint to the one addressed in this report and is mentioned only to differentiate between the two time periods. In accordance with Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service cannot make a determination on matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a 3 bedroom maisonette, the landlord has a vulnerability marker against the property, this is listed as a physical disability with other medical issues.
The flat is on the first floor of the building, in which there is a two tier entrance system. There is a main entrance point from outside of the building into the building and a second entrance point from the communal area of the building into the corridor/landing space outside of his property. The system is made up of a video/visual component and an audio component. When fully operational the system allows residents to see and speak to visitors, as well as remotely allow them in.
The landlords tenant handbook states it is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the building, including the entrance and entrance halls (and subject to reasonable expenditure and consultation this can also include entry phones).
The landlord’s repair guide, effective from September 2013, categorises three types of repair with the following timescales:
1. emergency, repairs can be categorised as emergencies if the repair poses a serious risk to health and safety, these repairs are attended to within 24 hours.
2. urgent, repairs can be categorised as urgent if, “while not an emergency, can be a serious nuisance if not repaired”, these repairs are attended to within 3 working days,
3. and non-urgent. these repairs are attended to within 20 working days and are “routine repairs”.
The landlord’s complaint policy explains how complaints can be made and the timescales for providing a response. The policy outlines a three-stage approach, with the timescales being:
1. For the early resolution stage and acknowledgement of a complaint, the landlord must respond within 3 working days. It will only enter into this stage with agreement from the resident and only with agreement from the resident will the matter be closed,
2. For the complaint stage, the landlord will acknowledge within 3 working days and must respond within 15 working days,
3. For the review stage, the landlord will acknowledge within 3 working days and must respond within 25 working days.
In the landlord’s compensation policy, effective from May 2021, it includes a section detailing the levels of compensation that can be awarded when it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. The landlord had three categories detailing the severity of the impact on a complainant as follows:
1. Low impact: where “the complainant has just cause but has not suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result of the events”. Awards of £250 per annum can be made for delays in this category and £250 per annum for distress, or £5 per week.
2. Medium Impact: “The events are clearly an injustice to the complainant and the service has failed to meet the required standards. A repeated failure” by it to “address the shortcoming, even of a low impact event, could give rise to consideration of medium impact level of compensation.” Awards of £500 per annum can be made for delays in this category and £500 per annum for distress, or £10 per week.
3. Major Impact: “A serious failure in service standards. It could either be the severity of the event or a persistent failure over a protracted time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address a complaint”. Awards of £1000 per annum can be made for delays in this category and £1000 per annum for distress, or £20 per week.
This policy also states that “time and trouble is not the same as delay or distress” compensation between £50 and £250 will be considered when, for example, response times are not adhered to and if the complainant was required to put unnecessary time and effort to resolve an issue.

Summary of events

In an update to this service the landlord advised the initial report of a fault with the door entry system in September 2020 was attended to on 4 September 2020, the fault was marked as complete on this day and there were no further reports of a fault until 29 October 2020. This fault was attended to the next day and notes say it was tested with the resident and left working properly. The next reported fault was made on 6 November 2020 and was attended to on 11 November 2020 but no fault was found according to the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2021, advising the door entry phone system had “crashed yet again” and was “totally malfunctioning”. Within this email he states,
1. The picture was on and off all the time.
2. He was unable to speak to anyone through the system as it was “coming on and off every few seconds”. He had nearly missed a medication delivery due to this,
3. His wife was on “immune depressants” and should have been shielding but had to put herself at “great risk to receive our necessities”,
4. He had contacted the call centre that morning to report as a repair and was told it was not an emergency which he disagreed with.
5. He concluded by stating he was “making a formal complaint regarding these issues”.
The landlord carried out a repair and replacement of the video board of the system on 20 January 2021 as it had been water damaged. According to the landlord notes, a further repair was needed and the board replaced again. A works order was placed to upgrade the system on 21 January 2021.
A stage one complaint was logged on 21 January 2021 when a councillor forwarded the residents email of 19 January 2021 to the landlord. Notes from the landlord state an acknowledgement was also sent this day although this service has not seen evidence of this.
The landlord phoned the resident on 10 February 2021, internal notes from the landlord state the resident advised his intercom to be working at this moment but a part was required to fully resolve the on-going issue.
In an update to this service the landlord stated “it was advised on 10 February 2021 that the system would be updated in 6 weeks time. The programme was proposed to start on 15 March 2021 however this was not done and there were no further notes or updates about this” on its repair system.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 February 2021. Within its response it said:
1. It was aware that the issue was yet to be fully resolved.
2. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had been experiencing.
3. It confirmed the software would be upgraded, however it did not have a “definitive time frame on the arrival of the required equipment from the relative manufacturer”.
4. It advised it would ensure that the resident was kept up to date and apologised again for the lack of communication in relation to the matter.
The resident responded to the landlord via email on 11 February 2021, within this email the resident made clear his vulnerabilities and the detriment this issue was causing his household, this included:
1. He had suffered a fall in his flat due to his “spinal injury and chronic problems” so only confirmed the system was working as his daughter had told him it was.
2. his wife had chronic arthritis to her right knee and could not “stand or walk at present”.
3. His household was “shielding once again” and the entry phone system was more essential now than at any other time.
The resident emailed a local councillor on 15 June 2021 in which he stated that he had not heard from the landlord since the stage 1 response and questioned why nothing had happened since the response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 June 2021 and advised that due to the global pandemic the door entry manufacturer had major problems in sourcing the components required for the door entry software upgrade, therefore the upgrade had been delayed. It gave a new start date for works as 30 June 2021 and apologised for the length of time taken alongside the inconvenience experienced.
On the 29 June 2021, following a determination by this service, where it was recommended the landlord discuss with the resident if he wished to progress his complaint of January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and stated he wished to progress his complaint.
In an update to this service, the landlord advised, it started the works to upgrade the system on 1 July 2021 and completed the works on 12 July 2021, with individual monitors fitted to each property on 14 July 2021.
The resident informed the landlord and his local councillor he would contact this service on 21 July 2021, as the landlord had not approached him as recommended in the previous determination to discuss escalating his complaint.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 26 July 2021, within this email he again, stated he wished to progress his complaint. Internal notes from the landlord show this was recorded as an escalation request, however no evidence has been seen that this was acknowledged.
On 15 August 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord again wishing to progress his complaint. Within this email he referenced previous emails which had not been responded to.
On 4 September 2021, the resident forwarded an email he had sent to his local councillor, to the landlord stating it was “nearly four weeks” since he had asked to escalate his complaint and the landlord had “made no attempt to investigate properly or resolve this complaint at all at stage 1”. Within this email he requested the councillor forward his request on to the complaints team.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 September 2021, it said its contractors had advised the system was off for an hour when they changed the front panel. It acknowledged the inconvenience experienced and apologised from a “repairs element towards your complaint for the temporary outage of the security system”.
The landlord confirmed to the resident in an email dated 14 September 2021 that a stage 2 complaint was currently open and gave the reference number. It said he would receive a response by 11 October 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021. Within this email he stated “he had emailed so many times to date with no responses to date” or received an acknowledgement of his complaint. He expressed the delay in responding was not acceptable.
The resident emailed his councillor and the complaints email of the landlord on 15 September 2021, within this email he referenced a recent time the system failed and he had to report a repair. The resident detailed his dissatisfaction with the call to the landlord when he tried to raise the repair, he also stated he wished to record a complaint but was told by the call handler that they did not deal with complaints so could not do so.
Internal emails from the landlord provided to this service dated 16 September 2021, show feedback being given on a call which had been listened to dated 19 January 2021. Within these emails it was confirmed that the resident was correct and as there was a vulnerable marker on the property, the repair could have been raised as an emergency. It also referenced a call back requested on this phone call but could not confirm that this was raised or passed on.
Further internal emails from the landlord, dated 28 September 2021 detail the problems the manufacturer of the door entry system had with sourcing the components required, due to the global pandemic.
The landlord issued a response to the complaint on 11 October 2021, it stated this was in response to the residents complaint it recorded on 26 July 2021. It detailed this response as an “update and provisional decision”, on the residents complaint which it clarified as it had “failed to keep to the recommendations set out” in the previous determination by this service. The landlord summarised the complaint history in this response, this included:
1. An email complaint was first received on 21 January 2021 and acknowledged on the same day.
2. The complaint stated that the door entry system had crashed again and the resident was unable to use it at all, the resident had explained how this was affecting his household.
3. The complaint also detailed the residents experience over the phone that day, with a job which was not raised as an emergency repair.
4. A call was made on 11 February 2021 where the resident advised that the intercom was working but a part was still required to fully resolve the issue.
5. The stage 1 response sent on 11 February 2021 apologised for the inconvenience that this had caused. The resident was advised that the situation would be monitored he would be kept up to date. An apology was given for the lack of communication also.
6. There was no further correspondence logged until 28 June 2021 when the landlord confirmed that works to upgrade the system would start on 30 June 2021 following issues with getting the parts to carry out the work.
7. The resident was unhappy about the landlord not complying with the Housing Ombudsman recommendations of a previous determination.
Further in its response, the landlord:
1. Addressed the delays with the repairs, it said “having reviewed the repairs history was clear that there had been ongoing issues since January 2020”. It detailed what it had found between the dates January to August 2020. It said it was still chasing for the information to be provided and will provide a further response as soon as possible and consider compensation for delay, distress and time and trouble.
2. It did not dispute the recommendations from the previous determination had not been followed, including carrying our repairs and updating the resident. It apologised for this and advised it would take this into consideration for its final response.
3. It confirmed that the complaint mentioned in the previous determination took 2 months to be escalated, it apologised again for this and advised it would be taken into consideration also.
4. It apologised for the repair reported on 19 January 2021 not being raised as an emergency repair, confirmed the repair was seen to on 25 January 2021 but could have been attended to sooner if raised correctly.
5. It concluded by advising it upheld the residents complaint, acknowledged there had been a substantial delay in resolving the door entry system. It disputed the only reason for the 18 month delay had been due to resourcing parts so said it would provide a full response once it had all the information but advised the resident of his right to escalate his complaint due to the considerable amount of time he had waited.
The landlord issued its final response to the residents complaint on 22 October 2021. Within this response the landlord:
1. Noted the number of repairs raised from September 2020 and advised previous repair attempts showed the system was “obsolete” and repairs would not have been affective in the long term.
2. Stated whilst it was clear that there had been multiple issues with the door entry system, it could be seen that the landlord endeavoured to restore it.
3. Advised issues with the delivery of parts for the new system caused the significant delay, as it was expected to be installed in March 2021. However it stated, whilst there was a delay, it was not caused by the actions or inaction of the landlord or its contractors.
4. It acknowledged the previous issues raised and addressed in the “preliminary response” and offered £100 compensation for the delay in escalating the stage 2 complaint and for the prolonged response. It apologised for any inconvenience.
5. It concluded by stating it partly upheld the complaint on this occasion, due to the time taken to carry out the necessary repairs, it was clear that it had endeavoured to repair the system before it sought a replacement. Once this was found to be the only solution it faced delays from the manufacturers which was out of its control.
6. It reiterated an apology for the delay in fully responding to the complaint and it would offer £100. It highlighted its policy to check for arrears before compensation was paid out, stating any arrears would be credited before any compensation was paid.
Following a further email from the resident, the landlord responded on 26 October 2021, copied the body of the text of the response into an email and advised there would be no further investigations into the door entry system issue and the resident could approach this service if he remained unsatisfied.
The resident responded to the landlords stage two response on 27 October 2021. Within this email he said:
1. He did not understand why the landlord had changed from fully upholding his complaint to partially upholding his complaint within its responses.
2. The impact this had on his family should have been taken into account. It caused him “great anxiety, distress and frustration in having shopping and medication delivered to his home”.
3. The call centre repeatedly “refused to raise” repairs as an emergency.
4. From September to February it was one failure after another when repairing the door entry system.
5. The system was not tested in front of him, but his wife.
6. A new video unit was fitted in his property in August, not June or July.
7. The resident stated he believed the landlord knew before covid how old the system was and how often it was breaking down, therefore it did not have to wait until February 2021 to decide an upgrade would have been required.
8. The resident stated the response was “very biased and unfair”, did not take all his information and views into account and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation in line with its policy.
9. He requested the landlord “respectfully reconsider its response” taking into account all his points and further emails he had sent.
In an update to this service on 10 March 2022 the resident detailed the below:
1. The landlord had not taken into account all the recommendations as per the previous determination dated the 29th of June 2021.
2. The landlord had not asked the resident for his side of events or taken what he had sent into account.
3. The landlord had not followed its policy or procedures.
4. The landlord had breached his rights to the quiet enjoyment of his home as it knew the system was outdated but continued to do temporary repairs.
5. There were “many, many more points and aspects” that the landlord had not responded to or failed to follow its policy and procedures.
Further communications between the resident and landlord have been provided to this service which show there was confusion around much compensation the landlord had offered the resident. The landlord confirmed its offer of compensation at stage 2 was £100.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled ongoing repairs to the residents intercom system between the dates September 2020 to July 2021.

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law, within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time this; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. Although this issue has been ongoing for some time, this investigation can only take into account the actions of the landlord from September 2020 onwards.
This service has seen no evidence of dedicated repair records in relation to the door entry system from September 2020, therefore an accurate assessment cannot be made on whether the landlord kept to its repair responsibilities with reference to timescales as detailed in its policy. However, from the information it did provide to this service and its final complaint response to the resident, a conclusion can be made that the landlord responded to each report of repair to the door entry system in a reasonable amount of time. This information showed 5 repairs between September 2020 and February 2021, when it decided the system would be upgraded. It was appropriate for the landlord to continue to carry out temporary repairs before deciding to upgrade the system. It is reasonable for the landlord to decide whether to carry out multiple repairs or replace a component based on opinions from appropriately qualified staff or contractors concerning what would be economically viable in the circumstances. Although it is recognised the repeated repairs would have caused the resident inconvenience and mounting frustration, the landlord fulfilled its obligation in carrying out the repairs.
It is not disputed there was a delay in upgrading the door entry system. The landlord decided in February 2021 it was beyond economical repair, an upgrade would be required, and it expected a start date within 6 weeks. However the door entry system was not replaced until July 2021. The landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident updated with this delay as promised in its stage 1 response, no evidence has been seen of any communications between the resident and landlord from February 2021 up to June 2021. The landlord has advised this service the delay was due to a shortage of electrical components coming into the country following the covid pandemic. This service sees this as a reasonable reason for the delay and something the landlord could not have prevented.
Overall, there was no evidence of any significant failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations in repairing the door entry system, its failure was due to poor communication and record keeping which is expanded on further in this report. It is for this reason a finding of service failure has been found for how the landlord handled ongoing repairs to the residents intercom system between the dates September 2020 to July 2021.

How the landlord handled the second complaint about the above initially raised in January 2021.

The resident raised a complaint on 19 January 2021, the landlord recorded a stage 1 complaint on 21 January 2021. It is not clear whether the landlord recorded the complaint in response to the residents email or the email from a councillor. Its complaint policy states a stage 1 complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days, however this service has not seen evidence that the complaint was acknowledged. Furthermore, the landlord spoke with the resident prior to issuing its stage 1 response however this service has seen no record of what was discussed on this call, apart from the resident advising the intercom was working. The landlords complaint response was issued on 11 February 2021, just outside its timescale within its policy.
The contents of its stage one response did not fully answer some of the issues raised by the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge the residents complaint about his experience when reporting the repair, nor did it acknowledge the impact the situation was having on the resident despite him clearly stating this in the complaint. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication in this response and promised to keep the resident updated but then failed to do so. It was however, 4 months until the resident received a further update on the upgrade of the system. This shows the landlord did not demonstrate it was focussed on the resolution of the complaint or in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles at the initial stage, indicating it was more determined to respond in time, not in full.
No escalation route was provided in its initial response and the resident responded via email to the landlord on the same day but no evidence has been seen to show how or if, the landlord responded to this communication. Furthermore, with the exception of an update in June 2021 advising of the start of the works, this service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged any of the 5 separate emails the resident sent between 29 June 2021 and 4 September 2021 where he requested to escalate his complaint. This is not acceptable from the landlord especially in light of a determination from this service was issued to the landlord in June 2021, which included a recommendation to discuss the escalation of the complaint with the resident and provide a timely response. Although this was a recommendation and not an order, this service would still expect a landlord to act on any recommendations made in the spirit of the dispute resolution principles.
The landlord noted the escalation of the complaint on 26 July 2021 and issued its final response on 21 October 2021 which was significantly outside of its target timescale by 63 working days. It is noted the landlord provided a preliminary response on 11 October 2021, this service has seen no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately informed of any delay in advance of this however and spent time and trouble pursuing his concerns which is likely to have caused mounting frustration and inconvenience. This service finds that this delay combined with the lack of communications and the perceived reluctance to escalate the residents complaint to be unreasonable, causing unnecessary frustration, time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord’s initial stage 2 response on 11 October acknowledged a service failure and upheld the residents complaint, however, it advised it required more information and therefore did not offer any redress for the failures identified. Furthermore, when the landlord provided its subsequent, final response it amended its outcome to partially uphold the residents complaint. It is not reasonable, within a complaints process for the landlord to give different outcomes on its decision of a complaint, without a clear indication as to why its initial determination had changed. This caused unnecessary confusion and upset for the resident. This service would expect the landlord to have gathered all required information before it concluded on whether a complaint was upheld or not. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its stage 2 response and this was its reason in providing the initial response letter. However, it is not clear why the initial stage 2 response on 11 October 2021 was not described clearly as a holding action, giving an update to the resident whilst it required to gather more information and providing a timescale for its final response. This would have been a more appropriate step for the landlord to take.
The landlord did not consider the time and trouble experienced by the resident in having to escalate the complaint due to the inappropriate level of communication and the delay in the landlord’s communication in the second response. Although it apologised, this was not sufficient as it was not proportional to the impact of the service failure.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord did acknowledge its service failures in its stage 2 responses, it is not disputed that there was a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, for which the landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of the failure to escalate the complaint in good time. However, it advised it would consider both the delay in its response as well as escalating the complaint, and also distress, time and trouble. As it failed to consider what it said it would, this service sees the amount offered as not proportional to the impact of its identified service failure in its complaint handling and its delays in responding to the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of maladministration with no permanent impact. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay £500 compensation for the failings identified in its complaint handling.

This service has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on the repair records to offer clarity and it would be expected that these are sufficiently detailed to show what repairs took place and when. However, in an update to this service when asked for required information the landlord stated, “after the initial decision to upgrade the system there was no further notes or updates about this logged on its repair system”. This was further supported by evidence provided that showed internal emails where the landlord was trying to understand what had happened following the decision to upgrade the system and in order to respond to the residents complaint. These emails state there were no notes to “evidence what was done and what was beyond our control” and notes on its housing system were “extremely limited”.
In addition to this the landlord (and resident) provided a substantial amount of emails as evidence for this investigation. Although it is noted that the resident sent multiple, lengthy email trails into the landlord, the landlord should have filed these on its management system with its response recorded alongside. This way the landlord might have demonstrated that it was managing its communications with the resident effectively.
The failings in record keeping caused the resident mounting frustration as he emailed the landlord with no response on numerous occasions. Poor record keeping also impacted on the ability of this service to fully understand the repairs outcome and follow up works required to the door entry system. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and an order to offer redress and implement improvements has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found service failure in how the landlord handled ongoing repairs to the residents intercom system between the dates September 2020 to July 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration in how the landlord handled the second complaint about the above initially raised in January 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

Overall, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations in repairing the door entry system, its failure was due to poor communication and record keeping.
The landlord failed use the complaints process as an opportunity to see what had gone wrong and seek learning opportunities to improve its service. Its initial complaint response did not address all of the residents complaint, it failed to deliver on the assurances it made to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. It failed to respond to requests by the resident to escalate his complaint leaving him frustrated and causing him to have to invest unreasonable time and trouble chasing the landlord. It also failed to provide proportional redress for the resident in pursuing his complaint.
The failings in record keeping caused the resident mounting frustration as he emailed the landlord with no response on numerous occasions. Poor record keeping also impacted on the ability of this service to fully understand the repairs outcome and follow up works required to the door entry system.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor record keeping.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £500. This is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance on remedies.
5. Review the correspondence from the resident referenced in this report, ensure it is recorded appropriately and all expressions of dissatisfaction are acknowledged and responded to in accordance with its policy.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its record keeping processes, staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
2. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
3. Its intention and a timescale to review its operational complaint management to ensure:

(1) All aspects of a complaint are captured and responded to,

(2) It fulfils any commitment made in its complaint responses,

(3) Escalation requests are acknowledged and actioned,

(4) Offers of redress are proportionate in the circumstances of the case.