Stonewater Limited (202223019)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223019

Stonewater Limited

29 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The impact on the resident of a dispute with an energy supplier.
2. Administration of the rent and service charge account.
3. The resident’s concerns about a parking safety issue.
4. Reports of defects in the property.
5. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord, having purchased his property on 7 January 2022. The property is located within a new development and was subject to a defect liability period. It is a 3 bedroom house with allocated parking.
Following the completion of his purchase the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2022. This was to provide him with meter readings and details of the utility suppliers for gas, electricity, and water. On the same date the landlord also wrote to the energy supplier to notify it of the sale of the property and provide the meter reading.
The landlord’s records indicate that a snagging list of outstanding repairs was drawn up with the developer prior to the resident moving into the property. This included a crack in the glass to the front door. Its contact records show that the resident contacted it on a number of occasions to raise and follow up on repairs. These included his initial contact on 31 January 2022 about the glass in his front door and a report on 30 March 2022 of difficulties with the patio door. The landlord completed an end of defects inspection with the resident on 18 August 2022.
The resident first contacted the landlord about parking on 8 June 2022 and again on 6 October 2022. He reported that people were parking on the kerb, blocking the pavement, and access to his and neighbouring driveways. He attached photographic evidence of this.
The resident raised a complaint with his landlord on 17 October 2022. He set out several separate issues of what he considered to be “unacceptable customer service”. He said that:
1. there were a number of defects in his property that had been reported to the landlord that had not been dealt with, or where there had been a significant delay in the repair being completed. This included a 3 month wait for a repair to a broken glass panel in the front door, and a further 3 month delay for repairs to a faulty lock on the patio door.
2. a dispute between the landlord and an energy supplier had prevented him setting up an account and being able to pay his bill. This had left him in debt.
3. he had been left with large rent and service charge arrears as the landlord had failed to collect his direct debit, set up in January 2022.
4. he had reported safety concerns around inconsiderate parking and the landlord had taken no action.
As an outcome to his complaint, he was asking for the landlord to cover his energy bill from January to October 2022, to waive the rent and service charges for the same period and for bollards or posts to be installed to restrict parking on the pavement. He further said that he wanted to see improved communication with customers, and between the landlord’s staff and its key stakeholders, including its contractors. The landlord’s complaint file recorded that, having spoken with the resident, he was happy for the parking issue to be removed from his complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2022. In this it addressed each of the issues that he had raised. It apologised for the delays that had occurred in dealing with the defects and completing repairs to his property. It further apologised for the miscommunication that had occurred. It said that it had made changes to its processes which would allow its customer service staff to view the defects list for each property. It had also introduced a new aftercare team to give all new homeowners a point of contact to resolve issues. Regarding his rent and service charges, it said that the direct debit had been cancelled by his bank and that he had been notified by the landlord’s ‘allpay’ system. It apologised that it had not contacted him directly when his direct debit had been cancelled. On the issue with the energy supplier, it recorded that this had been resolved. The landlord concluded that it had not provided the level of service expected and apologised for this. It offered him a total of £475 compensation. This was broken down as £200 for the delay in repairs, £150 for its poor communication and £125 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint and requested that this be escalated on 21 November 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 2 December 2022. The landlord provided its response on 22 December 2022. In this it acknowledged that the resident remained disappointed with the customer service he had received and that there were 5 key aspects to his complaint. These were the delayed completion of defects and repairs to his property, the difficulties he had encountered in setting up his energy account, the direct debit for his rent and service charges, his safety concern around parking and the landlord’s handling of his complaint. In its response it said:
1. it had completed the end of defects inspection on 18 August 2022. Having met with the resident and agreed a list of works, its developer agreed a mutually convenient appointment with the resident for these works to be carried out. It said that by 22 November 2022 it had confirmed with the resident that a number of items had been completed, with 2 further items having been completed ahead of its complaint response. It noted that there were 2 remaining repairs. These were to the hallway carpet and the cooker light. It was arranging for an inspection of the flooring and would work with the resident to find the best solution for him. It had agreed that the resident would go through the warranty process to get the cooker light repaired. It apologised that this had not been explained to him when he first raised this, either by its customer service centre or through its stage 1. It extended a further apology for the delay in dealing with the defect to the patio door lock and the glazing in the front door.
2. that it had written to the energy supplier following the sale of the house. It said that the resident had contacted it in September 2022 to share the difficulties he had experienced. It noted that the resident had been able to resolve the issue. Whilst it had considered the resident’s comments it had fulfilled its obligations in notifying him of the energy provider and providing the meter readings. It said that it could have been more proactive in explaining its approach and apologised for this.
3. it should have contacted the resident sooner about the debt on his account and apologised that it had not. It was not able to waive the charges for the period January to October 2022. Under the terms of his agreement, it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure that payments were made to the landlord, not the landlords to collect these by a certain method. It said that it was recruiting more staff to its income team to ensure that it could reach out to residents earlier when they fell into debt.
4. that parking had not been included in it stage 1. It had now investigated and had a plan to move forward. It said that it was consulting with residents about the introduction of parking enforcement, with a deadline for responses by mid January. It provided him with the details of the officer who was dealing with this. It apologised that it had overlooked his correspondence on this issue and had not responded. This had been due to the volume of correspondence received. It had made changes to the management of its inboxes to minimise the risk of this happening again.
Throughout its response the landlord offered additional compensation to that offered at stage 1. This totalled £400. This was broken down as follows:
1. £75 for its poor communication about the oven light and use of the warranty.
2. £100 for the delay in dealing with the patio lock and the glass in the door.
3. £75 in recognition that it could have been more proactive in explaining its approach about contact with his energy provider.
4. £75 for its failure to respond to his contact about parking.
5. £75 for the delay in escalating his complaint.
The resident asked that his complaint be escalated to the landlord’s customer complaint panel, but due to the unavailability of the panel this did not occur. The landlord referred him to the Ombudsman. The resident contacted the Service on 29 December 2022 to express his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service and its responses. He provided a detailed breakdown as to the reasons for his continued dissatisfaction.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

The landlord has shared a copy of the resident’s manual specific to their property, which was issued to the resident on completion of his purchase. This provides information about the property, including the utility providers. It provides information about the defect period and contact numbers for reporting repairs. This further provides details around target times for dealing with reported repairs, categorised as Emergency (within 24 hours), Urgent (within 5 days) and routine (within 20 working days). It also provides detail as to repair responsibility for a list of common repairs. This document confirms that guarantees would have been provided to the new occupiers for the oven, hob, and extractor. It also provides guidance around being a considerate neighbour.
The landlord’s terms and conditions for shared ownership confirm that the property is sold as a leasehold and that rent is payable on the share that the purchaser does not own. The rent is then reviewed annually. This document also says that with new homes there will be a one year aftercare policy or defects period. This will be effective from when the property was transferred to the landlord. This is in addition to any NHBC or equivalent cover.
The landlord’s new home defect guide defines a defect as “a problem inside your home that was caused by a failure in fixtures, fittings or craftmanship which means that aspects of the building are not performing adequately for their intended purpose”. It says that an inspection will be carried out 12 months after the property was completed and that it will repair any defects that have occurred.
This document provides guidance on how to report a defect and sets out the landlord’s response times. It says that it prioritises any repair that could impact on a resident’s health and safety and will attend these within 24 hours to “make safe”. Follow up appointments will then be arranged. For all other reported defects these will be attended by its contractors via an appointment with a target time of 31 days to carry out the repair. It advised that its contractor would contact the resident within 10 working days to book an appointment. At the end of the defects liability period the shared owner is responsible for all repairs to their home.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage complaint process. Both stages have a target of 10 working days. The policy sets out that where the landlord is unable to respond fully to a complaint within this target it will notify the resident and agree an extension. It will keep the resident informed of the progress of its investigation. The policy provides for an optional customer complaints panel, which is made up of an independent group of the landlord’s customers. The landlord has a separate compensation policy.
The landlord’s homeowners’ arrears procedure sets out its objective to minimise debt “by encouraging a payment culture…” It says that it will “phone a homeowner within 5 days of the account falling into arrears”. The procedure further establishes the expectation that homeowners comply with the terms and conditions of their lease and a failure to pay charges is a breach of the lease. All accounts are to be monitored monthly.
The neighbourhood management policy sets out its expectation on its residents and how it will make its neighbourhood safe places to live alongside the services it provides. This policy covers its approach to parking areas. It is expected that its residents keep to the terms of their agreement with the landlord. It specifically highlights that residents should make sure that their vehicles are legal, do not cause a nuisance or danger to others and are not parked on green space, including front gardens. Its approach to neighbourhood management is to work with its residents, alongside other organisations such as local authorities and the police.

Scope of investigation

The resident provided the Service with a timeline for a repair to his front door. This covered a period from 8 January 2022 to 5 September 2023, when the repair was completed. He documented his contact with the landlord throughout the period and the attempts made by the landlord to carry out the repair. The front door lock was captured as part of the end of defects inspection. This was not however considered as a standalone issue through the landlord’s complaints process.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident may wish to raise his concerns with the landlord as a new formal complaint, if required. While this issue is referenced within this investigation, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door covering the duration that the resident has referred to above.

The landlord’s handling of the impact on the resident of a dispute with an energy supplier.

Following its written communication with the resident and the energy supplier on 13 January 2022 there is no evidence of further contact between the parties on this subject until 8 September 2022. On this date the resident sent an email to the landlord. In this he said that he had been in contact with his energy supplier and that it had refused to allow him to pay for his supply. He had been advised that there was a dispute with another supplier, whom he assumed had supplied gas and electricity to the landlord ahead of his purchase. The dispute related to confirmation of a meter reading, but his supplier would not disclose the details. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that this email was responded to or followed up with the resident.
Aside from his formal complaint there is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord again regarding the issues he was experiencing with his energy supplier. It is noted that within his request to escalate his complaint he said that he had contacted the landlord on 21 and 28 September 2022 about this issue. These contacts are not captured within the landlord’s customer relations management system (CRM). Contact recorded on 28 September 2022 is a report by the resident that his front door lock was broken.
Internal emails between 14 and 15 December 2022 record contact between landlord staff and the energy supplier. These confirmed that the landlord had been provided with a final bill for the property for the period prior to the resident’s purchase. This had been delayed as it had incorrectly been sent to the property address. These further confirmed that the energy provider had the resident recorded as the account holder. There is no record of a dispute with the energy supplier. Further to this the landlord recorded that the other supplier, identified by the resident, was a meter installer for the energy supplier and not one that had installed the meter to the resident’s property.
It is not clear what if any action the landlord took in response to the query raised by the resident and what support it provided in resolving the issue. There is a suggestion that the landlord offered some support and intervened to resolve the issue, but this is unclear from the evidence provided. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the utility provider when the issue was first brought to its attention in September 2022. This would have provided an opportunity to resolve any outstanding issues that may have caused the delay in the creation of the resident’s account. That it did not is a failure by the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of or party to a dispute with the energy supplier. As the issue was only brought to its attention in September 2022, the landlord could not reasonably have intervened earlier.
Through its complaint response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it could have provided further advice to the resident and that it should have both acknowledged and responded to the resident’s enquiry in September 2022. It awarded an amount of £75 compensation in recognition of this. The offer was reasonable and within the guidelines set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and in line with the landlord’s own guidance on remedies. For these reasons, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of the administration of the rent and service charge account.

The resident’s lease agreement and the landlord’s terms and conditions for shared ownership confirm the resident’s responsibility to pay rent on the share that he does not own. These also specify his liability for service charges. The landlord wrote to the resident in line with the lease on 24 February 2022 to notify him of the annual rent review and an increase in the monthly rent effective from 1 April 2022.
The resident’s first recorded contact with the landlord about his rent and service charges was through his complaint on 17 October 2022. In this he said that he had set up a direct debit to pay his rent and service charge in January 2022 but “no monies had ever come out” of his bank despite contact with the landlord’s customer service department. The resident’s comments in relation to this are noted and are not disputed. However, there is no record of this prior contact within the landlord’s CRM records; as such, it is not possible to establish exactly what was discussed. It is not clear if a record was maintained elsewhere, or if the landlord failed to record the discussion. Nevertheless, the landlord spoke with the resident about his complaint and raised his concern with its income team. It said that “he had completed a direct debit form when he purchased the house which he believed was for the mortgage, rent and service charges. Having spoken with a neighbour they had said that they had 2 separate direct debits. This raised his concern that he had not been paying his rent”.
Through internal correspondence on 24 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident had not been paying his rent and service charges and there were arrears on his account. It noted that it had set up his direct debit on 10 January 2022, but this had been closed on 11 January 2022. This was due to a “BACS initiated closure”, which it said was usually by the bank on the instruction of its customer. It further said that the resident would have been notified in writing through its ‘allpay’ system, both when the direct debit was set up and when it was cancelled. He had not contacted the landlord in response to this. The landlord has not provided evidence that these letters were sent or that it proactively sought to contact the resident about the lack of payments.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to set up a new direct debit on 24 October 2022 but that this also failed. It spoke with the resident on 2 November 2022 to discuss the direct debit with him. He confirmed that he had received notification of the new direct debit and its cancellation. It arranged to set up a new direct debit using another account.
The landlord’s homeowners’ arrears policy says that it will contact a homeowner within 5 days of the account falling into arrears. No evidence has been provided that the resident was notified in January 2022 that his direct debit had failed or that the landlord had attempted to contact him regarding the increasing debt in the following 8 months. This was a failing by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rent and service charge account. Through its complaints responses the landlord has acknowledged its failure apologised for this. Furthermore, it told the resident that it had taken steps to recruit additional staff to ensure that it could be more proactive in the future. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that it had not followed its policy and to take steps to improve its service.
The resident is obliged to pay his rent and service charges in line with the lease agreement so the landlord would not be expected to refund this amount for the period from January to October 2022. It would however have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation due to its failings. Having considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Services guidance on remedies an order has been made that the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £150. This is in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to follow its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a parking safety issue.

The resident first raised his concern around inconsiderate parking on 8 June 2022. He contacted the landlord again on 6 October 2022. There is no evidence that either of his contacts were responded to. It is recorded that he agreed to remove the parking issue from his formal complaint logged on 17 October 2022. This indicates that he had been contacted by the landlord about his concerns and that he had been given assurance of action being taken. This is not however presented in the evidence given by the landlord and suggests a failure in record keeping.
The landlord’s records do indicate that there was contact regarding parking issues with the resident and neighbours in November 2022. There was then detailed follow up on 15 December 2022 when it contacted the resident to tell him of the actions it could take. The landlord consulted with residents of the development on 15 December 2022. This asked residents if they supported the introduction of parking enforcement. Further consultation was then carried out on 21 February 2023 about the introduction of double yellow lines. Both consultations failed to gain support from a majority of residents.
The landlord continued to communicate with the resident and advised that it was considering the actions it could take to address the parking issues he had highlighted, particularly with individuals parking on the pavement near a grassed area close to the resident’s home. The landlord’s records show that it reached an agreement with its parking enforcement contractor at the end of April 2023 and was to proceed with the installation of signage. Through the course of this investigation the resident has advised that the parking issues remain and that no action has been taken by the landlord since April 2023.
The landlord considered the issues raised by the resident about parking in its stage 2 complaint response. It appropriately acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s contacts on this issue and explained the steps it had put in place to ensure that it did not overlook future resident communication. It also offered the resident compensation of £75. Its stage 2 response told the resident that it would now be consulting with residents and identified the officer who would be dealing with this. While it appropriately took the first steps in its consultation with residents, the landlord has failed to follow up with the resident on the actions it subsequently proposed. It is expected that having made recommendations and commitments in its complaint responses that the landlord would follow these through to conclusion and ensure that the resident is kept informed. In considering this failure an order has been made for further action the landlord should take to seek to put things right with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of defects in the property.

The landlord’s CRM records capture several contacts made by the resident to follow up on snagging items, repairs, and defects within his home over several months. These include a crack to the glass in the front door, which eventually shattered before it was replaced, difficulties in opening the patio door, the bathroom window not opening, a fault with the front door lock, a faulty oven light and the fridge socket not working. The resident highlighted significant delays in the landlord’s handling of his repair reports. It is noted that the crack to the front door glass was recorded as outstanding when the resident moved into the property in January 2022. The glass was made safe in March 2022 and replaced by the developer’s contractor on 10 April 2022.
The landlord has provided a record of the timeline around defects at the resident’s property. This does not however capture all the details in terms of the resident’s reports and the actions taken to follow up in all instances. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have kept and maintained records of these interactions. That it has not is indicative of poor record keeping. However, it is recorded that the landlord introduced a new aftercare team in August 2022 as part of a review to its processes. This was highlighted in its complaint response as an improvement it had made to provide its new homeowners with a single point of contact.
An end of defects inspection was carried out on 18 August 2022. This captured 11 separate issues at that time, including that the front door lock and the key plate needed adjusting. When the resident followed up this item with the landlord on 28 September 2022, he was incorrectly advised that this was his responsibility as the homeowner.
In its stage 1 response the landlord set out the reported defects that remained outstanding. It advised that an appointment had been made for its developer to attend on 21 and 22 November 2022 to address all these issues. It explained that there had been a delay in getting the appropriate glass for the door due to general delays in “material supplies”. It also said that it “could not see how many times the request to repair the [patio door] lock was made”. It apologised for these delays, together with the incorrect advice he had been given, and the frustration and inconvenience this had caused. The landlord also said that it had improved its process within its customer service centre to ensure that its officers were able to see the defects list for each new home.
The landlord recorded in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had confirmed that by 22 November 2022 the landlord had completed repairs to the majority of defects, with a further 2 items being completed ahead of its letter. The two remaining items were for the hallway carpet and the cooker light. Items which the landlord’s records indicate were captured when the resident moved in. With appropriate advice the resident was able to resolve the cooker light through the warranty that was in place. The landlord then agreed to cover the costs for replacement of the hallway floor covering, an item that was concluded through correspondence on 10 April 2023.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the significant delays experienced by the resident and that he had received incorrect advice. It said that it had taken steps to improve its service through the introduction of a dedicated team and new processes within its customer service centre. It also made an offer of £525 compensation to the resident over both stages of his complaint. This was broken down as a total of £300 for the delay in completing repairs, £150 for its poor communication and £75 in recognition of its failure to provide the resident with correct advice around the warranty.
While the landlord took appropriate steps through its complaint investigations to identify areas for improvement to its service and acknowledge the delays in addressing the defects to the resident’s home, the delays were significant. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it took proactive action to pursue the repairs with the developer or keep the resident informed at each step in the process. This left the resident having to pursue the repairs, and to some of the incorrect information that he received. Having considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Service’s guidance on remedies an order has been made that the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £100. This is in recognition of the poor level of communication and record keeping by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident first raised his complaint with the landlord on 17 October 2022. Initial contact was made with the resident to discuss his complaint and then the landlord wrote to him to advise that it required more time to complete its response. It provided its stage 1 response on 11 November 2022. This was within its target of 20 working days where an extension has been put in place.
With his request to escalate his complaint the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a delay in it accepting this. It also acknowledged within its stage 2 response that it had again extended the time within which it would provide a response. The resident has highlighted to the Service and in his response to his landlord’s stage 2, that he received only one telephone call from the landlord throughout the complaints process. He said that there had been no attempt made by the landlord to discuss his complaint with him and find a mutually agreeable resolution on the issues he had raised.
In investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s complaints policy establishes the timeframes within which it must respond to a resident’s complaint and the action it should take if it requires additional time to investigate a complaint. There is no provision within its policy for the landlord to contact the resident via the telephone. It was appropriate that the landlord called the resident to discuss his initial complaint. It then reverted to notifying him in writing of the extension to the time for its investigation. This was in line with its policy. It further acknowledged and provided notification of an extension to its response time in writing at stage 2 of his complaint.As there had been an extension to the time taken to respond to his initial complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to telephone the resident to discuss this further extension. There is however no requirement for it to do so.
The landlord’s policy includes an optional review by its customer complaints panel. This is described as an independent group of the landlord’s residents who volunteer their time to review complaint cases independently of the landlord. As the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint, he asked that this be considered for a review by this panel. The resident was referred by his landlord to this service as at the time of his complaint its panel was not in place as it was undertaking training with new panel members. In the circumstances this was appropriate advice.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents. It further provides a framework within which landlord’s should handle complaints. This encourages landlords to consider key dispute resolution principles set out by the Service: be fair; put things right and learn from outcomes. Through this report it has been identified where the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and the actions that it had put in place to address these and improve its service.
Through its complaint’s stages the landlord offered a total of £875 in compensation. This included £75 for the delay in the escalation of his complaint and £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. The offer was reasonable and within the guidelines set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and in line with the landlord’s own guidance on remedies. For these reasons, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the impact on the resident of a dispute with an energy supplier.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of administration of the rent and service charge account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a parking safety issue.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of defects in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. pay the resident compensation of £350 calculated as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to follow its homeowners’ arrears policy.
  2. £100 for its failure to follow through the promises made at stage 2 to address issues of parking.
  3. £100 in recognition of the poor level of communication and record keeping in relation to the defects at the resident’s property.
  4. This is in addition to the £875 previously offered to the resident as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
3. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified through this report.
4. Provide the resident and the Service with an action plan for addressing the ongoing issues of poor parking on the resident’s estate. This should include specific timescales for the introduction of parking enforcement, signage, and further consultation with residents.
5. The landlord should ensure that its staff are reminded as to the importance of keeping clear and accurate records of interactions with residents and of inspections and works carried out. A copy of guidance issued to staff should be shared with the Service. The landlord may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management for guidance on good record keeping practices.
6. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within the timescales set out above.