The Guinness Partnership Limited (202114051)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114051

The Guinness Partnership Limited

22 August 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:
1. Response to reports of drainage issues.
2. Response to repairs to the bathroom flooring and skirting board.
3. Level of communication provided regarding the repairs.
4. Handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house.
The resident has been reporting issues to her landlord with her drains since 2021. The drainage issues affect the resident’s toilets and bathroom and have resulted in sewage leaks in her back garden.
The resident first complained on 13 May 2021. She advised that she was unhappy with the level of communication regarding her repair. She stated that the issue with the drains had been raised multiple times but that the landlord had not provided a resolution.
The landlord responded on 22 October 2021. It advised that it had attended on 1 March 2021 as an emergency, but that no further works were required. It also attended on 8 April 2021, but the contractor did not provide further information on what repairs were required. It confirmed that replacement flooring and skirting in the bathroom were outstanding, following a sewage leak. It stated it would contact the resident once it had dates for further required works.
The resident escalated the complaint on 8 February 2022 as she advised no further repairs had been completed. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 May 2022. It advised its contractor had attended 8 times since February 2021, and further works had been identified. It acknowledged these had not been completed. It stated it had escalated this matter internally. It also confirmed that due to issues with the contractors, the flooring and skirting was not replaced until 23 and 25 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged poor communication with the resident, apologised, and offered £500 compensation.
The resident continued to report issues with her drains. On 21 October 2022, the landlord noted that the drains needed to be cleared, but that it could not identify reasons for blockages. On 28 March 2023, the landlord noted that works were booked for 19 April 2023, however the Ombudsman has not seen details of the specifics of what these works were for.
On 19 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, as she said she did not know her complaint was closed as she had not received the stage 2 letter. She informed the landlord that she was still experiencing issues with her drains which had resulted in human waste on her patio.
The landlord issued a new stage 1 on 27 November 2023. It said that it had been identified by the repairs team that a full CCTV inspection of the property was required. This had been scheduled for 20 November 2023. It offered £250 for failing to repair since the previous complaint.
On 23 November 2023, the contractor advised the landlord that there was a sag in the pipework near the kitchen sink. This resulted in water holding in the sag. The contractor made the landlord aware this would require excavation to fix, or the landlord could conduct regular cleaning.
On 4 December 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 January 2024 and advised that the CCTV inspection was unable to identify the issue but found it was not related to an inspection chamber, or external pipework. The landlord’s in–house team concluded it must be pipework underneath the kitchen, and it advised it would complete a further visit. The landlord also acknowledged there had been poor communication with the resident. It offered £130 compensation.
The resident has advised that there is not a resolution as of the time of writing this report, although contractors have been out. The Ombudsman has seen communications suggesting that the landlord has not agreed with the contractors report and has asked for CCTV footage so it can review this itself. The resident would like a resolution to her issues as she advised the drainage issues, particularly when there is leaking into her garden, affects the use of parts of her property.

Assessment and findings

Paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were bought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised a complaint in May 2021 and the complaints process was completed in May 2022. As of July 2023, the resident stated that she had not received the stage 2 complaint response and believed the complaint was open. The most recent complaint is a continuation of the issues investigated in the first complaint. The landlord referenced events going back to 2021 in its most recent stage 2 response. As such, the Ombudsman has extended the scope of the investigation to the 15 March 2021, which is the first dated evidence the Ombudsman has seen in relation to this case.

The landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues.

A note on the 15 March 2021 stated that a works order had been raised to replace flooring and skirting following a sewage leak. A further note on 26 March 2021 stated that the pressure was coming from the bottom of the sink and not the toilet. The resident subsequently advised that sewage appeared in her garden when flushing the toilet. The landlord suggested the water company had completed a repair, although it is unclear what this was.
The Ombudsman recognises that the records are a number of years old, and that the repair may not have been completed by the landlord, or its contractors. However, given the nature of the resident’s reports that this was resulting in sewage coming into the resident’s garden, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take immediate action to investigate the concern. Sewage from a toilet is potentially hazardous and could also be distressing for the resident. The Ombudsman is unable to conclude from the evidence that the landlord was treating the matter as an urgent concern.
Landlord records on 13 April 2021 and 10 May 2021 suggested that a manhole was needed to be installed in the garden due to the drainage issues. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this took place. The Ombudsman appreciates that finding the source of the drainage issues may be complicated. However, when a recommendation for a resolution is made, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to either follow up on this resolution, or clearly note and communicate with the resident why a course of action is no longer appropriate. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord has done this.
On 24 May 2021 there was an internal email within the landlord which suggested that the resident had been informed that there would be a further survey. The resident stated that a camera had been put down the drain twice before and was reluctant to have a further survey. The landlord should have been clear with the resident why an additional survey was required. Although the Ombudsman has not seen extensive details of the conversation, we have seen a note from the landlord dated 26 May 2021, which indicated the resident was now happy to have a further survey, following discussion with the landlord. It is positive the landlord worked with the resident, to ensure it could continue its investigation.
The landlord noted on 24 June 2021 that the survey had been completed and advised that the drain lines were to be jetted. It would then temporarily cap 1 line, and if this resulted in its disuse the line would be cemented. Whilst it was encouraging that the landlord identified a resolution, the resident advised on 22 July 2021 that she had not heard anything further from the landlord. She also advised that an engineer had informed her the identified repair would not resolve the issue. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to follow up on the repair, to ensure that it had resolved the issue. There is no evidence the landlord did this, until the resident contacted the landlord again.
The resident called the landlord on 8 September 2021 stating that a pipe for the downstairs toilet sink had been capped off and that she was unsure what was happening with this. She was not contacted until 29 September 2021, when the landlord advised that it was still chasing up the works with the contractor. The resident had advised there were issues when there was heavy rainfall and that she had been unable to use her bathing facilities for fear of leaks. The landlord advised the resident she should raise an emergency repair, should her bathroom leak when using bathing facilities. While it was appropriate to suggest that the resident should raise an emergency appointment in case of a leak, it was not appropriate that the resident had not been provided an update on the long-term resolution for her drainage issues.
There is evidence that the landlord continued to chase the contractor for an appointment. However, it does not appear that it was able to secure this appointment. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email suggesting that the matter was escalated internally on 6 October 2021 which is encouraging. However, it is of concern that despite escalation, no appointment was secured for the drains until the resident raised an emergency due to having no working toilet.
On 1 November 2021, an inspection report suggested that a soil pipe was running up a hill with a sharp bend and that this needed to be excavated and remedial works completed. Although the Ombudsman has seen records that suggest the landlord was working to get an appointment secured, it is unclear what the appointments were for and whether they related to this specific work. On 8 February 2022, the resident advised she would approach the Ombudsman as works had not been completed. The resident received an email on 13 March 2022 that the repair had been escalated to director level but that there was still no update. It is concerning that the landlord appears to have escalated this case internally, and that this escalation did not result in any response.
The landlord acknowledged in its 2022 stage 2 response that 2 of the repairs it had identified over the previous year had not been completed. It advised it did not currently have a date for this. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord sent its contractor 8 times for repairs, it is concerning that the landlord made no progress towards a permanent repair. The Ombudsman recognises that this could have been distressing for the resident, particularly as the repairs affected bathing and toilet facilities, and resulted in sewage appearing in her garden. The resident had reported unpleasant smells and has also advised the Ombudsman that at times she was without any bathroom facilities at all.
The landlord chased works on 7 October 2022. A note on 21 October 2022 suggested that there was no reason for the blockage, following a CCTV inspection. It did identify that the drains were dirty and recommended all drains to be cleared. It is unclear from the evidence if this recommendation was completed. However, given that the resident continued to experience issues, it would indicate that the landlord did not take action to provide any lasting resolution at this time.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord advised it had raised a works order to a new drainage contractor to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman has not seen any specifics of what this work entailed. A note on 28 March 2023 stated that works were scheduled for 19 April 2023, however the Ombudsman has not seen any record of this appointment being completed, or what the works were. The Ombudsman is encouraged that the landlord appointed a new contractor at this time, given that it had not yet made progress to find a lasting resolution. However, due to there being no evidence of the specific repair and the fact that the resident subsequently reported further issues, the Ombudsman has concluded that works completed were insufficient in providing a lasting repair.
When the resident re-raised her concerns on 19 July 2023, she reiterated that she had sewage on her patio and there were ongoing drainage issues. The landlord noted on 27 July 2023 that a CCTV survey had been completed previously and the pipework needed replacement, due to there not being enough fall to ensure the correct flow of the pipework. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this recommendation, or that it noted any decision as to why it was not appropriate to act on this.
Following further issues reported by the resident a contractor completed an inspection on 10 October 2023. The contractor stated that it had used jetting to clean the drains, but it could not identify other issues. The landlord raised internal concerns on the 7 November 2023 that the drains were making a gurgling sound, and that there was a foul smell, and this indicated the drains may block again. The landlord requested further investigation.
In its stage 1 response dated 17 November 2023, it advised a further CCTV survey was recommended. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had some reports that were unable to identify any issues with the drains. However, we have also seen several recommendations as to where the problem could have been without any evidence that these recommendations were acted upon. While a further survey may have been beneficial, it is of concern that the landlord was conducting surveys, but not evidencing that it was taking action following these.
On 23 November 2023, the landlord identified a sag in the pipework under the kitchen sink. This was causing water to hold. The inspection report advised the landlord would need to excavate to fix this, or it could conduct regular drain cleaning. There is no evidence from the landlord that it considered these recommendations and acted on these.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response advised a further inspection would be conducted on the drains on 19 February 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen an inspection report from this date. However, a note was added to the landlord’s system to suggest that the drains be flushed every 2 weeks for 6 weeks. On 26 February 2024, the resident reported that this was not being done. This is a further example of the landlord not completing recommendations that could have improved the situation for the resident.
On 26 February 2024, the landlord discussed that it would cap off the drain which was on an incline and run a new drain across the garden into a manhole. The resident advised this was suggested 3 years ago but was not acted upon. This has been noted as a recommended repair in paragraph 22 of this report. At the time of writing this report the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this work has been completed, or an explanation as to why this work has not been done.
The Ombudsman is aware that since the stage 2 response, the landlord has asked the contractor for the CCTV footage, so that it can review this, as it does not agree with the contractor’s report. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence as to whether this was obtained, or whether this has provided information on how the drainage issues can be resolved for the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of drainage issues as and when they arise. We also note that the landlord has at times attempted to investigate the underlying causes. However, despite a number of recommendations being made there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the landlord has made a reasonable attempt to deal with the underlying causes. Whilst the Ombudsman has acknowledged that the drainage issues may be difficult to diagnose, and therefore some delay could be expected, we consider that more than 3 years is an unreasonable time frame for this issue to be ongoing.
Of particular concern is the issue has at times been potentially hazardous as it has caused toilet waste to leak internally and externally. This is likely to have been distressing to the resident. Further, at times the resident has felt uncomfortable using her bathing facilities. The Ombudsman understands that the matter primarily affects a downstairs toilet, which is a second bathroom in the home. However, it has also affected the main bathroom and the kitchen sink, as well as the garden. Although the landlord has responded as an emergency when the resident has had no working toilet, or bathing facilities, the Ombudsman considers that it is understandable that this ongoing situation may have been distressing for the resident. In addition, it has been reported on several occasions, that there is an unpleasant smell, which the resident has had to live with.
The Ombudsman notes that in all its complaints responses the landlord has apologised and offered compensation. In the landlord’s first stage 2 response, the landlord wrote “It is clear to me that if we had been more proactive with our approach rather than simply attending to clear a blockage, we would have resolved the issue months ago”. In the landlord’s latest stage 2 response it stated that “The delay with your repair has been caused by our communication”. It is of concern that despite both these quotes in the stage 2 responses, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord has improved its approach to resolving this repair.
The landlord offered compensation in each response. In its first stage 1 response, the landlord has offered £150 for the delays in carrying out the repairs. The first stage 2 response offered £250 for the delays in carrying out the repairs. However, the Ombudsman considers this to be an award for the delays to drain issues and to replacing skirting board and flooring in the downstairs toilet. As such we have considered that £125, 50% of this amount was for the delays to drains only. This response also offered £175 for the stress and inconvenience. In the second stage 1 response £250 was offered, and finally in the second stage 2 response £75 was offered for the trouble and inconvenience. The landlord also offered £10 for a failed appointment and £10 for failing to put a preventative management plan in place. The total awarded for the delays and stress caused by repairs to drainage is £795.
Although the landlord has apologised for its actions, and considered a compensation amount, it has failed to make necessary changes to its processes to ensure a resolution is reached for the resident. Due to the substantial length of time the issue has been ongoing, and the impact this has had on the resident, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues.
The resident’s main aim in raising the complaint with the Ombudsman was to get a resolution to the drainage issues. As such the Ombudsman will make an order that an expert conducts a new drainage survey, and that all recommendations made are considered by the landlord. The landlord is to provide evidence of what actions it will take to resolve the issues on a long-term basis. If it is not taking forward any recommendations made to date, or from the new survey, it must provide an explanation to the resident and the Ombudsman.
In addition, the Ombudsman has considered the compensation. We consider that £795 awarded by the landlord in total, is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused to the resident over a protracted period of time. However, the Ombudsman also considers that a payment for the loss of enjoyment of a room should be made. We recognise that there was at times, a loss of toilet and bathing facilities, although these were responded to as an emergency. The impact of the drainage issues primarily affected the downstairs toilet. While this was not the only toilet in the house, it is a room within the property that the resident pays rent for. We also recognise that this has impacted the resident’s use of the garden. Further, there has been notes in the landlord’s evidence that suggest other parts of the property have been affected, and that there have been unpleasant smells in the home due to the drainage issues. As such, we have considered an amount based on 10% of the rent from 15 March 2021, the first date in this investigation, until the date of this report.
The amount awarded for loss of enjoyment is £1,625. The Ombudsman will therefore order a total payment of £2,420 in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues. However, the landlord will be able to deduct any payment already made.

The landlord’s response to repairs to the bathroom flooring and skirting board.

A works order to replace the floor and skirting was first raised on 15 March 2021. On 11 June 2021, the landlord added a note that the flooring should be completed after the drainage issues had been resolved. It was reasonable the landlord would want to resolve the underlying issues before replacing the flooring and skirting. As above there were significant delays to this, however the Ombudsman will not assess the delays to drainage again in this section of the report.
An appointment was eventually scheduled for 8 November 2021 to replace the flooring and skirting. Up until this time, the landlord was chasing a contractor without success. The appointment on the 8 November 2021, was not attended to, and notes on the landlord’s system suggested this was due to the contractors account being on hold. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was making some attempt to replace the flooring, however it is concerning that the landlord was unaware that the contractor it was chasing, was not accepting work from the landlord.
The landlord subsequently tried to use another contractor. The Ombudsman has seen further attempts from the landlord to get an appointment secured. However, the landlord did not complete this repair until 23 and 25 May 2022. While the Ombudsman appreciates there were issues with the contractor, and that resources were affected by COVID-19, we consider it was unreasonable to leave the resident without flooring in her downstairs toilet for this length of time. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response dated, 25 May 2022.
The Ombudsman has seen a record that the resident reported multiple lines on her floor and that it felt foamy when walked on. This was reported on 30 May 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this was responded to, however we are also unaware that the resident raised this again. As such it may be resolved. The Ombudsman would recommend that the landlord speak with the resident to ensure there are no ongoing concerns with the flooring.
As per paragraph 34 of this report, the landlord offered a total of £250 for delays to repairs, which included the repairs to the skirting board and flooring. As the landlord did not specify how much was for individual repairs, we have apportioned 50% of this amount to the delays in repairs to the skirting board and flooring.
The Ombudsman will not consider further compensation for delays caused by the drainage issues in this section. As such we have assessed the delay from 8 November 2021, until 25 May 2022 when the works were completed. While this is still a delay, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to repairs to the bathroom flooring and skirting board.

The level of communication the landlord provided regarding the repairs.

During the resident’s initial complaint, she raised frustration with the communication she was receiving for her repairs. She had advised that she never got an answer when she raised her concerns. On several occasions since that time the landlord noted that the resident was waiting on a call back or an update from the landlord. This indicates that the landlord was not proactively updating the resident, resulting in the resident having to chase the landlord.
On 8 December 2021, the resident said that communication from the landlord had been “non-existent”. When the complaint was first responded to at stage 2, the landlord stated that the communication since reporting the repair until the stage 2 response was “extremely poor”. It is positive that the landlord recognised the poor communication, however the stage 2 response does not detail how the landlord would communicate in the future. This was important, as there were outstanding repairs.
Despite the acknowledgement that communication had been poor, the Ombudsman notes that the resident requested a call back on 26 September 2022 because she had not been provided with an update. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this call back. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 October 2022 and on 8 April 2023. On 19 July 2023, the resident advised that she was unaware the complaint had been closed as she had not received correspondence regarding this. The Ombudsman has seen that a stage 2 was dated 25 May 2022. However, given that repairs were ongoing, the landlord had previously identified poor communication with the resident, and that the resident had been asking for updates, it is disappointing that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlord proactively updating the resident on her case.
In the final stage 2 response, the landlord attributed the delay in the repair as down to poor communication. It identified 1 call back which had not been made. While it is positive that the landlord recognised a failed call back, it is concerning that the landlord did not recognise that it failed to proactively correspond with the resident. From the evidence provided, updates were only provided when the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update. In the case of protracted repairs, it would be reasonable for the landlord to agree regular communication, and as a minimum confirm that it will update when anything changes with the repairs case status. The resident having to chase for updates may have left her feeling frustrated and forgotten about, and as though the landlord was not taking action on her repair.
In addition to what the Ombudsman has identified in relation to updates to the resident, the Ombudsman also considers that the substance of the communication is likely to have caused confusion at times. The Ombudsman has struggled from the evidence to clearly understand what the resident was told in relation to her repairs. She appears to have been informed that works were needed. These works subsequently never went ahead, and there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident why this was the case. On 1 occasion, a repair was discussed with the resident 3 years after it was first identified. The landlord did not appear to acknowledge that the resident had already been advised this work would be done or confirm to the resident why this remained outstanding. To date, the Ombudsman cannot establish that the resident has ever been given a clear description of what the issue is, or what the landlord was doing to resolve the matter. This could understandably be frustrating as it provides the resident with no reassurance the matter is being treated with urgency or that the repair is being managed correctly.
The Ombudsman has noted £85 awarded by the landlord for poor communication over the 4 complaint responses issued. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has in part accepted poor communication as a cause of the complaint, it has not demonstrated any improvement throughout the complaints process, or since the latest stage 2 has been issued. As such there was maladministration in the level of communication the landlord provided regarding the repairs.
The Ombudsman considers that an order for the landlord to provide a comprehensive update of where the repairs case is currently, to be appropriate. The Ombudsman also considers that there should be 1 point of contact for the resident, and an agreed schedule to update the resident. The updates should be meaningful and provide details of progress since the previous update in relation to the repairs to the drainage issues.
In addition, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s compensation to be insufficient. As per our remedy’s guidance, the Ombudsman has awarded £500. This is due to the landlord acknowledging its failings but failing to address these. This is also in recognition of the potential frustration caused to the resident by the poor communication, coupled with the period of time the matter has been ongoing.

Complaint handling.

The Ombudsman notes that this complaint has spanned over 3 years. We recognise that the complaints process was completed twice, and that there was a gap between the first and second complaints process of more than 12 months. However, the Ombudsman is also aware that the resident has stated she was unaware the first complaint process had ended. We are unable to conclude if or why the resident did not receive her stage 2 response, as a letter dated 25 May 2022 has been seen by us. As such we will not find a failure on the landlord’s part in relation to this.
The landlord’s complaints policy in 2021 stated that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. These time frames have not changed to date.
In the first complaint process the landlord took 116 days to issue its stage 1 response, which was over the timescales in its policy. It took 75 working days to respond at stage 2, which is also considerably over its timescales in its policy.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident spoke with the landlord on 19 July 2023, as she was unaware her complaint was closed. She advised the issues were ongoing and that this frustrated her. As this is an expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord should have either directed her to the Ombudsman at this time or opened a new complaint. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response until 87 working days after this expression of dissatisfaction, which was considerably over the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord took 34 working days to respond at stage 2 during the second complaint. This is over the timescales in its complaints policy, however, the delay is not excessive.
The Ombudsman is encouraged by the landlord’s complaint response format. The landlord has clearly demonstrated that it has summarised the complaint in each complaint response, acknowledged the issues, advised what it will do in the future, and identified lessons it has learned. Although this is encouraging, throughout this report the Ombudsman has noted that despite the landlord acknowledging and stating that it will make improvements, this has not been demonstrated.
The Ombudsman would encourage the landlord to continue to adopt its approach when responding to complaints, however the landlord must ensure that where it makes promises to the resident, or identifies improvements needed to its service, that it takes meaningful action. Failing to do this undermines the complaints responses and could lead to relationship breakdown between residents and the landlord.
The Ombudsman has identified that the landlord offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1 during the initial complaints process. The landlord offered a further £25 in its latest stage 2 for the delay in escalating the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that £75 is low given the delays to the complaint responses. We also consider there to be a failing in the landlord not following up on the lessons it learned in the complaints process, despite correctly identifying them. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has considered its remedies guidance and considers £200 for complaint handling to be a more appropriate award.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of drainage issues.
2. Level of communication provided regarding the repairs.
3. Handling of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to repairs to the bathroom flooring and skirting board.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to have a new drainage survey conducted by an expert. The landlord must demonstrate that it has considered all recommendations made to date, and any new recommendations made by this survey. The landlord is to provide a works schedule of what actions it will take to resolve the issues on a long-term basis. If it considers any recommended actions to be inappropriate, it must provide an explanation to the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord must ensure that a senior member of staff has oversite of these repairs, from the date of this report, until the repair is completed.
The landlord is to communicate to the resident a comprehensive report of the current status of the repairs case. It must agree a future communication schedule to provide her with updates on the repairs. It should appoint one point of contact. Updates to the resident must be meaningful, provide details of progress since the previous update in relation to the repairs to the drainage issues. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the schedule of communication, the appointment of one point of contact, and details of how it will ensure updates are meaningful in the future.
The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £3,120 to the resident. The landlord may deduct any amount it has already paid in relation to the following matters:
1. £1,625 for the loss of enjoyment of the property as a result of the ongoing drainage issues.
2. £795 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the ongoing drainage issues.
3. £500 for poor communication.
4. £200 for complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to review the complaint handling in this case, specifically in findings relating to the landlord’s failure to improve on areas it identified as failings in its complaint responses. The landlord should consider what actions it can take to improve this in future. This may involve staff training, improved monitoring of complaints, or process changes. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman the outcome of the review, and any proposed actions it intends to take.
Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should speak with the resident to ensure there are no ongoing concerns with the flooring.
The landlord should reoffer the £125 in relation to the response to the repairs to the bathroom flooring and skirting board.