Together Housing Association Limited (202127388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127388

Together Housing Association Limited

2 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning damp and mould in his property.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy that began on 15 July 2020. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s tenancy agreement included a section titled “Ending your tenancy”. It stated that the resident must give at least 28 days’ notice in writing if he wished to end his tenancy. It said that if it received “proper notice terminating the tenancy”, it could not be withdrawn or extended.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy states that each repair is assigned a priority based on the information the resident has provided. It said that ‘Priority 1’ repairs are attended within 24 hours, and are those that need making safe or repairing where there is an immediate risk to life or to the property. ‘Priority 2’ repairs are completed within 28 days, and are those that do not pose immediate risk to person or property and can be carried out by appointment.
The policy states that the landlord will utilise customer profiling data to highlight specific needs enabling, where possible, adapted service delivery to meet those needs.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that its process had one informal, and two formal stages. It said that it had adopted the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are to Be fair; Put things right; and Learn from the outcome of complaints.
The policy stated that the informal stage of its complaint process was called “Get it Sorted” (GIS). It explained that this was used to put things right as quickly as possible. It said that, although it was an informal stage, it would log all details of the complaint and find a resolution within five working days. It explained that any actions agreed at this stage would take place within a reasonable timeframe after this.
The policy stated that if the GIS stage did not resolve the complaint, the resident could set out their position and the outcomes they were seeking, and a stage one investigation would begin. The resident would receive a written response within 10 working days. The landlord could extend this by up to a further 10 working days where this was not possible.
The landlord’s policy stated that if the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response, they could set out their position and the outcomes they were seeking. The landlord would then acknowledge the escalation of the complaint to the resident within five working days, and it would be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two of its process. The landlord would set out the outcome of its stage two review in writing to the resident within 15 working days, which it could extend by up to a further 10 working days where this was not possible.

Summary of events

On 12 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s lettings team. He stated that his email should be considered a formal complaint and an update of his housing situation. He advised his baby daughter was due to be born the following month, and he wished to make an urgent application to move to a two bedroom property. He said that the disrepair of his current property meant that it was not fit for purpose. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. He had suffered repeated leaks from the flat above;
2. There was damp and mould throughout the property since his tenancy began;
3. The property was too hot in the summer, which he could not alleviate with airflow from the windows, without compromising security;
4. There was a persistent odour in the property;
5. He asked the landlord consider resolving all of this by doing the following:
  1. Incorporate a damp proof system in his property;
  2. Fit extractor fans and replace his damaged flooring;
  3. Fully refurbish and plaster the kitchen and bathroom;
  4. Assist towards the cost of redecoration.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord’s lettings team sent an internal email, forwarding the resident’s email to its housing team. It said that it had responded to him with advice regarding his wish to be rehoused.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord raised an inspection of the resident’s property with regard to the issues reported in his email the previous day. The target for completing the inspection was 23 October 2021. The landlord booked the inspection for 1 October 2021, which it noted was the next available date.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord completed the inspection and instructed that a job be raised for a plumber to investigate a bathroom leak in the flat above the resident’s property.
On 14 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed his concern and disappointment that he had not received a response to his complaint, nor a schedule of works following the landlord’s inspection of his property. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. His daughter had been born earlier than expected on 7 October 2021, and as such, he had moved out of the property on health grounds.
2. He requested a discretionary housing payment to cover the cost of this.
3. As the landlord had failed to meet its repair obligations, he was giving his “notice to quit with immediate effect”. He would remove all of his belongings from the property within seven to ten days.
4. He complained that he had been harassed for £85 arrears that had only resulted from his rent payments being changed from weekly to monthly.
5. He had lived in unsatisfactory conditions from the outset of his tenancy despite having reported this to the landlord on several occasions.
6. He believed he was entitled to “recompense by way of a substantial rent rebate and costs towards damages to personal property as a result of damp and mould”.
7. He asked that all communications now be in writing only.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord’s resolution team emailed the resident with reference to his emails to its lettings team. It advised that its lettings team were not in a position to manage his repairs, but that it would chase up the repairs he was waiting for following its inspection. It said it would contact him with appointment dates early the following week.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord emailed an update to the resident. It advised it was still trying to gain access to the flat above, before it began repairs to his property. It advised that a repairs appointment had been booked for 28 October 2021, which it was trying to bring forward. It was not clear from the email whether this appointment was for the resident’s property or the flat above. The landlord said it would continue to keep the resident informed.
On 20 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and repeated the points of the email he had sent to it on 14 October 2021.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email sent the previous day. It advised his email would be raised as a formal complaint and managed in line with the landlord’s process. It said that the resident would be sent a full response on or before 29 October 2021. It asked that he confirm he was certain he wanted to terminate his tenancy, and that it would then send appropriate documentation for him to sign. It explained that once he had done this, it would represent a legally binding agreement. It asked that he consider this carefully, and that it was sure a resolution could be reached that would not involve the resident leaving his property. It advised that he would need to give four weeks’ notice if he did wish to terminate his tenancy.
On 27 October 2021, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint and tenancy termination with his representative, but was unable to agree a resolution.
On 28 October 2021, the resident’s representative (RR) emailed the landlord, and made reference to her discussion with it the previous day. The RR stated that the resident wished to end his tenancy with immediate effect, due to the property being unfit for human habitation. She said that the resident also wished to make a claim for compensation and a rent rebate. The key points of the RR email were as follows:
1. The photographic evidence she had provided showed that the resident’s property had been unfit for habitation since the start of his tenancy.
2. The landlord’s willingness to let the property to the resident in that condition was a dereliction of duty.
3. The landlord had unfairly exploited the resident’s young age and naivety.
4. The resident had been willing to stay in the property until a two bedroom property had become available. However, the landlord had failed to respond in a timely manner despite the resident making several attempts to bring the condition of the property to its attention.
5. As a result, the resident had suffered significant anxiety and financial loss.
6. The resident would return the property keys to the landlord’s office on 2 November 2021.
7. The resident was happy for the landlord to meet the RR to discuss the matter further.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord replied to the RR. It stated that it still needed to follow its tenancy termination process, as they had discussed the previous day. It explained it needed the resident to give his official four weeks’ notice to end his tenancy. It advised that rent would still be payable in the interim unless an agreement was made. It asked the RR to confirm which address the tenancy termination documents should be sent to.
On 28 October 2021, the RR replied to the landlord. She said that the landlord should have sent the tenancy termination documents when the resident gave his “notice to quit” in writing on 12 September 2021. She repeated her points concerning the condition of the property and stated that the claim that the resident was liable for another four weeks rent had added “insult to injury”.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord replied to the RR immediately. It explained that the resident had not responded to its emails concerning the termination of his tenancy, and it would not start a legally binding agreement without his clarification. It asked again for confirmation of where it should send the relevant documents, and said if the resident could complete and return them by 2 November 2021, it would start the four week notice period from 31 October 2021.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord’s lettings team separately emailed the resident a ‘notice of termination’ letter. It advised the tenancy would end on 28 November 2021. It added that the termination letter needed to be signed by the resident and advised a variety of methods for doing this. It said that the keys could be collected from him, and asked that he book an appointment for it to do that.
On 3 November 2021, the resident emailed Environmental Health to report his property as being a ‘category one hazard’ with damp and black mould, and requested they complete an inspection. He provided photographs depicting black mould and fungal growth. He said he had moved out of the property since the birth of his daughter due to it being uninhabitable, and that he was staying with family.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that he had not signed the necessary paperwork to terminate his tenancy. It urged him to do so as he would remain liable for the rent until he did. It advised that, as it had been unable to resolve the resident’s complaint at the informal GIS stage of its complaint process, it would now formally respond at stage one of the process. It explained that stage one responses are normally sent within 10 days, but that it had been unable to discuss his complaint with the appropriate staff due to annual leave. It said it would aim to respond by 15 November 2021.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response. The covering email urged the resident to reconsider his position of not paying his rent whilst not officially terminating his tenancy, and warned of the effects of him doing this. The stage one response letter stated that, following receipt of the resident’s email on 12 September 2021, it had tried to resolve the matter at the GIS stage of its complaint process, but the resident had already moved out of his property. It said it would respond to each of the points raised by the RR in her email sent on 28 October 2021. The key points of the landlord’s stage one response were as follows:
1. It had investigated the pre- and post-void inspections completed at the resident’s property and was entirely satisfied that the property met its strict void property standard at the time of the resident’s tenancy sign up. It provided copies of the inspection reports.
2. It highlighted that the resident had not reported any issues when he viewed the property ahead of his sign up, nor after he had moved in.
3. When he signed up to the property, the resident had presented as an adult in fulltime work and had not indicated any vulnerabilities on the relevant document. It refuted exploiting the resident’s age or naivety.
4. It said that the resident’s tenancy began in July 2020 and the first call it had received from him was not until 24 August 2021. It stated that that was one of only five calls he had made to the landlord, and all of them had been exclusively about rent.
5. The resident’s email to its lettings team on 12 September 2021 had been his first report of a damp issue, and it had raised an inspection the next day.
6. The inspection had been completed 1 October 2021, which was well within its service standard, and had identified that water ingress had occurred in his property from a leak in the flat above.
7. The inspector had advised the resident that he would raise the necessary works to his property once it had repaired the leak in the flat above. The resident had indicated to the inspector that he was happy with this, but then moved out of the property a few days later.
8. It had subsequently experienced difficulties gaining access to the flat above, and accepted that, in hindsight, it would have been better to raise the resident’s repairs straight away, as he would then at least have had dates to prepare for. It said it had not done this to avoid the intrusion of further works if the leak in the flat above was not fixed.
9. It highlighted that even if it had raised works straight away, they would not have been undertaken before the resident moved out of the property a few days later.
10. It had called and emailed the resident through October 2021 but received no responses until the RR became involved. It was sorry that those attempts to contact and resolve the resident’s issues had been unsuccessful.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident electronic copies of its tenancy termination documents again. It said that if he was unable to sign them, he could give his formal notice by replying to the email.
On 19 November 2021, Environmental Health replied to the resident’s email sent 3 November 2021. It advised that it did not complete inspections in the first instance but that it had a management contact with the landlord who it would contact immediately to ascertain the situation with the resident’s property.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord emailed the RR. It said that the RR had previously advised that the resident would be returning his property keys, but that it had not received them. It advised it could not officially end the tenancy until the keys were returned.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and RR. It said it had not heard from him since it had sent its complaint response. It asked what their intentions were in the interest of achieving a resolution.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord’s rents team sent a generic email to the resident regarding outstanding rent on his former tenancy. The email showed the resident’s tenancy end date was 28 November 2021.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord carried out its ‘void pre inspection’ of the resident’s former property. It completed an accompanying report that noted that the leak in the flat above had been resolved. The report included photographs and a list of required work for each room. The majority of the photographs did not depict mould, but mould treatment works were listed for the kitchen that was noted as being as result of the leak in the flat above. Some mould was visible in the utility cupboard photographs and treatment works were listed for it. No mould or associated work was visible or listed in the hallway, living room or bedroom. The worst affected room was the shower room, with the photographs showing the very poor condition of the ceiling and the report ordered a full refurbishment of the room.
On 22 December 2021, the RR wrote to the landlord. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the complaint and requested that it be passed to its senior management.
On 7 January 2022, the landlord’s rent team sent the resident the same generic arrears email it had sent on 10 December 2021.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord emailed a reply to the RR letter she had sent on 22 December 2021, which it said it had received on 30 December 2021. It said it was sorry the RR was dissatisfied with its stage one response and that if she advised what specifically she was dissatisfied with, it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. It also offered the option of meeting with its repairs manager to discuss a resolution if she preferred.
On 4 February 2022, the landlord’s rent team sent the resident the same generic arrears email it had previously twice sent him.
On 24 February 2022, the RR emailed a letter to the landlord. The key points of her letter were as follows:
1. The resident’s email sent to the landlord on 12 September 2021 had made clear it was a formal complaint, but the landlord had failed to treat it as one.
2. The resident’s email had advised the landlord that his baby daughter was due to be born, and she arrived two weeks early on 7 October 2021.
3. The landlord had failed to advise a schedule of works after it had completed its inspection on 1 October 2021.
4. The stage one response had failed to compensate the resident for any of his losses.
5. The landlord had continued to unfairly harass the resident with regards to his rent arrears.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord replied to the RR and thanked her for her letter which it said was being reviewed.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord emailed the RR and apologised for its late update. It said that her letter was being reviewed by a senior manager. It asked if the RR could confirm what it was she required to resolve the matter.
On 9 March 2022, the resident received an email from a debt recovery agency regarding his outstanding rent arrears.
On 12 March 2022, the RR wrote to this Service and explained the details of the resident’s complaint, and the compensation levels she thought appropriate.
On 14 March 2022, the resident replied to the debt recovery agency. He said that the debt was in dispute and the matter had been referred to this Service. He asked that the debt recovery agency put the matter on hold until his complaint had progressed.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint letter that it explained was in response to the RR email received on 24 February 2022. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It was sorry that its relationship with the resident had broken down without it having a chance to resolve the matter, but it understood the resident’s new born baby was his priority at the time.
2. Its stage one response had acknowledged that, in light of the access issues it subsequently had with the flat above, delaying the ordering of works to the resident’s property until it had fixed the leak in the flat above had been a failing.
3. It wanted to reiterate its apology for this, and said that it had learned from it.
4. It hoped it could now reach a resolution with the resident and, having considered this, it had agreed to clear the resident’s outstanding arrears of £760. It said this would provide a clean slate for the resident and mean that he would not be adversely affected with future social housing applications.
5. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 16 March 2022, the RR wrote to the landlord to express her view that its offer to the resident was inadequate. She said that the landlord had already impacted the resident’s credit worthiness by prematurely passing his arrears to a debt recovery agency. She reiterated the points of the complaint and said that the resident was declining the landlord’s offer and proposed resolution as “too little too late”.
On 17 March 2022, the landlord emailed the RR and said that it was sorry it had been unable to reach a resolution with the resident. It advised that his rent arrears would still be cleared as offered and so he should receive no further contact about it.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s complaint stated that his property had been unfit for habitation from the start of his tenancy, and that he had reported this several times without the landlord taking action. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that supports this view. The landlord has evidenced that the property met its void standard ahead of the resident’s sign up. The landlord has also evidenced that the resident’s first call to it following the start of his tenancy, was not until 20 days prior to his complaint being made, and only concerned the frequency of his rent payments. As such, this assessment is based on the resident making his first report of damp and mould in his property to the landlord on 12 September 2021.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaint process. It included an informal ‘pre-complaint’ stage that it termed ‘Get it Sorted’ (GIS). The Ombudsman’s updated Complaint Handling Code was published on 9 March 2022, and included guidance warning landlords against the use of informal pre-complaint stages. This update was six months after the resident made his complaint. As such, the landlord’s use of an informal stage does not constitute maladministration in and of itself. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s delayed use of its GIS stage in its handling of the resident’s complaint was not in line with its own policy, and therefore did represent maladministration.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2021 to begin the process of applying for a larger property ahead of the expected birth of his baby. His email also reported damp and mould and made it explicitly clear that it should be treated as a “formal complaint”. The resident sent his email directly to the landlord’s lettings team, rather than the customer contact team that would have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, and particularly given how clear his email was, the Ombudsman would expect all of the landlord’s staff to be appropriately trained to recognise the resident’s email as a formal complaint and handle it accordingly. It was therefore not reasonable that the landlord’s failure to do so caused significant delay to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an inspection of the resident’s property on the first working day after his email had been received. It was also appropriate that the inspection was completed 19 days later on 1 October 2021, which was well within the 28 days allowed by its repairs policy. However, and as the landlord later acknowledged, it was not reasonable to delay raising the required works to the resident’s property until after it had attended the leak in the flat above.
This was particularly the case as the landlord was aware that the resident’s baby was due to be born in the latter part of the month. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would adapt its service where possible based on its profiling data of residents. It is not reasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered prioritising the works to the resident’s property in light of the imminent birth of his baby.
This was further compounded by the landlord’s lack of contact with the resident following its inspection of his property on 1 October 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any further communication with the resident following the inspection, until it replied to the email it received from him on 14 October 2021. Neither the landlord nor resident could have known that the resident’s baby would be born two weeks early. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that even if the landlord had raised the works immediately, they would have been unlikely to have been completed before the resident chose to move out of the property and subsequently end his tenancy. Nevertheless, it was understandable that the lack of works schedule, or of any contact at all from the landlord to the resident in this two week period, would have increased his anxiety about his property being attended to in a timely manner. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s resolution team were responsible for handling formal complaints. The resolution team became involved in the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2021, and it was appropriate for it to provide repairs updates to the resident over the following days. However, this was by now over a month since the resident had made his formal complaint, and the landlord has acknowledged that this was the first that its resolution team knew of it. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that its GIS stage was a means for it to ‘put things right quickly’, and that it would the log the complaint at this stage with a view to finding a resolution within five working days. The resident had made his complaint on 12 September 2021, and repeated and expanded upon it on 14 and 20 October 2021. It was therefore not reasonable that the landlord failed to make any reference to its complaint process to the resident until 21 October 2021, which was far outside the timeframes of its own policy and would have added to the resident’s anxiety and frustration.
It was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to achieve a resolution to the resident’s complaint when it spoke with the resident’s representative (RR) on 27 October 2021. For the reasons explained above, it was not reasonable that it was only at this point that the landlord appeared to view itself as being in the GIS stage of its complaint process. It was also unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord explained or even mentioned its GIS complaint stage to the resident or the RR until it advised that the GIS stage had been unsuccessful in its email to the RR on 4 November 2021. The same email was used to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint, 39 days after he had made it.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 November 2021. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge that it had been a failing not to raise the works for the resident’s property after its inspection, and to instead wait until it had resolved the leak in the flat above. However, it was not reasonable that it failed to apologise for, or even refer to, the fact that its response was being issued over two months after the resident had made his complaint.
Over the course of this same period, the resident gave notice to end his tenancy. The RR had stated that this was given in writing on 12 September 2021 and that the landlord should have accepted it then accordingly. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support this view, but the resident did make clear his wish to end his tenancy on 14 October 2021. It was understandable that the landlord sought confirmation from the resident that this was really his wish, and tried to assure him of its intentions to resolve his complaint and property concerns. However, it did not do this until a full week after the resident had given his notice, and it was not reasonable that a further week then passed before it sent him the termination documents.
The landlord received the RR request for the complaint to be passed to a senior manager on 30 December 2021. The landlord replied on 10 January 2022 and asked that the RR advise what specifically the resident remained dissatisfied with, which was in line with its policy. The RR explained the key points of the resident’s dissatisfaction in her email sent on 24 February 2022, and it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this the same day.
Over the course of the same period, the resident received arrears emails from the landlord’s rents team. Whilst the emails looked likely to have been automatically generated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s relevant teams to liaise with each other and to agree to suspend its arrears actions whilst the complaint process was still ongoing. This was particularly the case as the resident’s arrears formed one element of his ongoing complaint. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to pass the matter of the resident’s arrears to an external debt agency before issuing its final complaint response to him. This would have added to the resident’s anxiety about his credit rating at a time when he would have been looking for a new home.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter to the resident on 15 March 2022, which was within the timeframe stated in its policy. In reaching a decision in these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord has acted reasonably, and whether the redress offered is appropriate and proportionate to the failures identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions and offer of redress were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Since the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has changed its complaints policy so that there is no longer an informal stage. Its complaint process now only has two formal stages in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has created a page on its website that provides advice and guidance on damp and mould, along with a dedicated method for residents to report it. Both of these improvements demonstrate that the landlord did learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response to the resident did again acknowledge and apologise for its failure to raise the resident’s repairs following its inspection, from which it said it had learned from. It advised that it had agreed to clear the resident’s £760 arrears. Given the circumstances in which the resident accrued the arrears, this demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to be fair, and put things right. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this did not represent reasonable redress of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint response again failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays and failures in its complaint handling, nor its premature passing of the resident’s arrears to a debt agency. The landlord’s agreement to clear the arrears represented a reasonable effort to return the resident to a position approximate to what he may have been in prior to his complaint. However, it did not provide additional redress for the failings identified in this report, and the impact on the resident.
As such, the redress was not proportionate to the identified failings, and the Ombudsman has made a compensation order to this regard. The order considers the two month delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, along with its other failings detailed above. It also considers that the landlord had only a limited opportunity to resolve the matter before the resident moved out of the property and gave notice to end his tenancy. The order is based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states that orders in this range are appropriate when a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings, and has made some attempt to put things right but has not adequately addressed the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning damp and mould in his property.

Reasons

The inspection of the resident’s property was raised and completed by the landlord within the timeframes of its policy. However, it rightly accepted that delaying the raising of the necessary works was a failing, as was its failure to communicate effectively, show consideration towards the imminent birth of the resident’s daughter, and prematurely pass his arrears to a debt agency.
The case provided a good example of some of the reasons the Ombudsman updated the Complaint Handling Code to advise landlords of the pitfalls of operating ‘informal pre-complaint stages’. It is acknowledged that the early arrival of the resident’s daughter, and his decision to move out of the property shortly after the inspection would likely have meant that the repairs would still not have been completed. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that if the landlord had recognised the resident’s email sent on 12 September 2021 as a stage one complaint, handled it accordingly, and maintained contact with the resident whilst it worked towards a resolution, a more favourable outcome would have been more likely to be achieved.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pays the resident £550 compensation for the distress and anxiety it caused him;
3. Reviews its staff training needs with regards to its updated complaint policy and staff recognition of what constitutes a complaint.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.