Unity Housing Association Limited (202405302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405302

Unity Housing Association Limited

11 July 2025

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 reports about:
1. her request for adaptations to her property.
2. repairs to her property, including external garden maintenance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began on 10 March 2003. The resident has said she is poor physical health. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident first reported that she had no heating or hot water in her property on 5 April 2023. A contractor attended to reset and service the boiler on the same day. The contractor found that the boiler was due for replacement. On 18 April 2024, the landlord raised a works order for the boiler to be replaced “as and when required.”
The resident contacted the landlord twice in April 2024 to provide a list of repairs needed to her property and request an urgent update on when they would be completed. The repairs included:
1. a house alarm that was continuously beeping.
2. a bi-fold kitchen door that was off track and had fallen on the resident.
3. remote fan lights.
4. an unsafe front and rear garden due to storm and arson damage.
5. a blocked kitchen sink.
6. a shed that the landlord had previously boarded up, leaving the resident with no access.
On 11 July 2024 we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to make it aware she wished to complain. The resident complained that:
1. several repair requests had been ongoing since around April 2023.
2. the resident’s property had disability adaptations carried out by the local council as the landlord had said it was unable to do so. The landlord had been aware of the resident’s needs when she moved in and had initially said it would carry out any necessary adaptations.
3. the resident had again requested multiple repairs to her property in March 2024, including to:
  1. ceiling lights in the kitchen and living room.
  2. a bi-fold kitchen door.
  3. the kitchen sink, which was blocked.
  4. the garden shed.
  5. garden fencing.
4. storms had caused the resident’s garden to become unsafe and full of debris.
5. she had several significant health concerns which she felt the landlord was overlooking.
6. she would like the landlord to complete all outstanding works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 August 2024. It said:
1. it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to service failures relating to the servicing of the house alarm and the clearance of debris from the garden path.
2. it had no outstanding adaptation requests associated with the resident’s property and would be happy to assist the resident to make a new request, if required.
3. its position on each internal repair issue raised by the resident was as follows:
  1. a new boiler was installed at the resident’s property on 18 April 2024, and there were no related repair requests outstanding.
  2. electricians had repaired the remote ceiling lights in the kitchen and living room on 20 March 2024, and there had been no further reports since. It had tried to contact the resident to discuss any new issues but had been unsuccessful.
  3. the resident’s house alarm was a gifted item from the landlord so was the resident’s responsibility to maintain, however it had agreed to carry out a service on a one-off basis as a goodwill gesture on 6 April 2023. This had not been arranged, for which the landlord apologised and said it would raise a works order.
  4. a contractor attended to repair bi-fold doors to the kitchen and pantry on 18 March 2023 and there had been no further reports since. It would send out a surveyor to inspect the doors for any required works if issues had persisted.
  5. as the blocked sink was a new report, it would raise a works order for a contractor to attend.
  6. it had previously carried out a make-safe visit to board up the damaged shed door and advised the resident that any further repairs were her responsibility. Its stance on this had not changed.
4. its position on the work required to the garden was as follows:
  1. it had visited the resident’s property in March 2024 and identified safety concerns in the garden, so had arranged an assessment by a professional grounds maintenance contractor which took place on 2 May 2024. The contractor made several recommendations that the landlord agreed to.
  2. said the contractor had reported that the resident was refusing access to complete the garden works and asked the resident to confirm availability to schedule works with the contractor.
  3. it would instruct a tree contractor to assess the condition of the trees in the garden once all gardening works were complete.
  4. it would send a surveyor to assess the fencing for replacement following completion of the garden works.
  5. it asked a contractor to clear the path from the resident’s rear gate to back door on 18 April 2023, but this was not done. It was sorry for this and had instructed this as part of the garden works.
  6. general garden maintenance is the resident’s responsibility as set out in the tenancy agreement, but it would cover the entire cost of the works as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 October 2024. She said:
1. the landlord had promised to repair the house alarm, bi-fold doors, and kitchen sink the week of her email but had as yet not attended.
2. she had previously told the landlord that she would be in hospital on 18 October 2024 and the landlord had then offered her an appointment for that day.
The resident maintained regular contact with the landlord between September and November 2024. During this time, the resident requested updates from the landlord about the outstanding works on multiple occasions. On 30 October 2024 the landlord said it had agreed with the resident that it would postpone the boiler replacement and garden works until spring 2025.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2025 and asked it to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025. It said:
1. the resident had not made any new adaptation requests since the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord reiterated that it would provide support with this if required.
2. it had mistakenly said the boiler was replaced in its stage 1 response. The boiler had actually been repaired on 7 October 2024, and the landlord raised a works order to replace the boiler on 8 October 2024. The replacement was on hold until spring 2025 on the resident’s request.
3. the house alarm service was completed on 23 October 2024.
4. the repairs to the remote ceiling lights were completed on 7 October 2024.
5. the kitchen entrance bi-fold door had been repaired on 7 October 2024, but the pantry bi-fold door was deemed irreparable so a new door was ordered. The replacement of the pantry door was still outstanding due to the contractor having difficulty arranging a suitable appointment with the resident. The landlord asked the resident to share her availability.
6. the kitchen sink was unblocked and a new mixer tap was installed.
7. it understood that the resident had agreed for all external works to be postponed and carried out in Spring 2025. It would contact the resident “soon” to arrange for the work to be carried out.

Post-ICP events

The resident confirmed that she would like the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 2 March 2025. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and felt “imprisoned” in her home due to the outstanding works.
The evidence shows that a contractor completed a full assessment of the resident’s garden on 7 May 2025. The contractor wrote to the landlord on 8 May 2025 and asked it to raise 3 works orders relating to a garden clearance. The contractor said it would start work to the garden on 12 May 2025.
In recent correspondence with this Service, the resident said that the work to the garden has not been completed. The resident also said that the landlord has not yet replaced the shed and the bi-fold door to the pantry as agreed. The resident would like for all outstanding works to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the issues in her property had impacted her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord, including repairs to a gas fire installation and several bathroom installations.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2024. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

Policies and procedures

Most of the landlord’s repairs information is detailed in the “tenant handbook” that it provides to residents. The handbook sets out that:
1. the landlord is responsible for repairs to pathways and other external means of access, plumbing installations including sinks, internal doors and door frames, central heating, and boundary fences.
2. residents are responsible for several repairs including replacing lightbulbs and fluorescent tubes, repairs to residents’ own fixtures and fittings, and repairs to anything belonging to the resident.
3. the landlord will make emergency repairs safe or secure within 24 hours.
4. the landlord will complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days of being notified.
5. the landlord will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days of being notified.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for minor adaptations to residents’ properties and will support residents with city council applications for major adaptations.
The landlord has a duty to keep the structure of the property in good repair and carry out any repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable time. This is set out in the landlord’s tenant handbook and the implied terms in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Adaptations to the resident’s property

In her initial contact to the Ombudsman that gave rise to the stage 1 complaint, the resident referred to adaptation requests that were made at the start of the tenancy. She said the landlord had initially said it would complete the required adaptations but changed its position.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Given that the resident moved into the property in 2003 and did not make her complaint until 2024, this aspect of the resident’s complaint was not made in a timely manner.
In both of its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that it had not received any new adaptation requests from the resident. On both occasions the landlord provided information on how to submit a new request and offered to support the resident in doing so if she felt this was required. There is no evidence to show that the resident contacted the landlord to request new adaptations to her property or assistance in doing so following either of the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her request for adaptations to her property. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances for the reasons set out above.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have recommended that the landlord contact her to provide information and an offer of support around requesting new adaptations, should the resident wish to request any.

Outstanding repairs

The landlord addressed several issues regarding the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs in its complaint responses. For ease of reference, we have referred to each issue separately below.

Repairs to the boiler

Following the resident’s first report of no heating or hot water on 5 April 2023, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s established timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs.
In an internal email dated 11 April 2023, the landlord said the resident had asked for the boiler to continue being repaired rather than replaced. This was due to the resident having regular hospital appointments which would affect her availability for longer duration works. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this agreement with the resident beyond the landlord’s internal correspondence, so we are unable to determine whether this was reasonable.
The boiler was not addressed again until the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 July 2024. The landlord said it had installed a new boiler on 18 April 2024 and was not aware of any outstanding repair requests. In its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025, the landlord said that this statement was made in error. The landlord apologised for the error, which was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident reported issues with her heating and hot water on 3 September 2024. The landlord said its heating contractor made several attempts to attend the repair but was unable to gain access until 7 October 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any attempts to gain access to the resident’s property prior to 7 October 2024. We are therefore unable to determine if this was a mitigating factor.
The documentary evidence available shows that the resident emailed the landlord on 5 occasions between 16 September 2024 and 2 October 2024 to discuss the boiler repair. The landlord failed to respond to the resident until 3 October 2024. While the landlord apologised for the delayed response, the resident was inconvenienced by repeatedly having to request an update from the landlord. This was unreasonable.
On 19 September 2024 the resident said she received a letter from the gas contractor saying it had been unable to reach her. The resident noted that the contact details provided to the contractor by the landlord were incorrect, which meant she had not been receiving their attempted phone calls.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the boiler had been left in full working order after the repair on 7 October 2024. The landlord confirmed it had raised a new works order to replace the boiler the next day, but that this remained outstanding as the resident had agreed to delay the works until Spring 2025. It said this decision was made in consideration of the resident’s health concerns and upcoming hospital visits. The resident has confirmed to this Service that this agreement was made. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
This Service understands that the boiler replacement has now been completed as agreed.

Repairs to remote ceiling lights

On 12 March 2024 the resident called the landlord and asked when her lights would be repaired. The landlord said that as the lights were potentially gifted items, the repairs were under review as they were considered non-standard. The resident asked for an urgent update as she had been without lights in her kitchen and living room for “some time.”
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had repaired faulty ceiling lights in the living room and kitchen on 20 March 2024. We have not seen evidence such as job completion notes to confirm that this was the case, which is a record keeping failure.
However, given that the resident did not dispute the claim, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair was completed on this date. As the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm when it was first put on notice about the resident’s ceiling lights, we are unable to determine whether this was within a reasonable timeframe.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had tried to contact the resident to confirm if there were any outstanding issues with the lights. It said it required further information from the resident before raising a repair and provided contact details. This was reasonable as it showed the landlord taking a proactive approach to remedy any outstanding faults.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had completed repairs to the lights on 7 October 2024 following a report made on 2 September 2024. It said it had not received any further reports since. However, the evidence shows the resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2024 and said the issue with the kitchen lights had returned. There is no evidence that the landlord actioned this report. This was inappropriate.

Repairs to a house alarm

In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to an email to the resident from 6 April 2023 in which it said it would service the resident’s gifted house alarm as a one-off goodwill gesture. The landlord recognised that it had failed to arrange the service and apologised, which was reasonable.
There is no evidence that the landlord arranged for the alarm to be serviced as set out in its stage 1 response until 22 October 2024. The landlord failed to provide an explanation for the delay, which was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by having chase an update from the landlord on several occasions between September and October 2024.
A contractor attended and completed a service and repair to the house alarm on 23 October 2024. This was 61 working days after the landlord said it would arrange the service in its stage 1 response. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s established repairs timescales and was inappropriate.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord said it would not carry out any further repairs to the house alarm due to it being a gifted item. The landlord has a right to follow its repairs policy, which says repairs to items belonging to residents (including gifted items) are a resident’s responsibility to arrange. The landlord explained that it had completed the service to the alarm as a goodwill gesture and therefore acted reasonably.

Repairs to bi-fold doors

On 15 July 2024 the resident reported that 1 bi-fold door had fallen on her and another would not close. In its stage 1 response 15 days later, the landlord said it had not received any reports of repairs to the resident’s bi-fold doors since 2023. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s recent concerns seriously or actioned them appropriately. This was unreasonable.
On 16 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had cancelled all appointments for the week on the basis that the landlord had “promised” attendance to complete repairs to the bi-fold doors and kitchen sink. The resident said she had informed the landlord she would be hospitalised on 18 October 2024 and had been assured that the repairs would be completed before this date. The landlord has not provided any records to confirm that it agreed this with the resident. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 October 2024 and confirmed it had arranged for a contractor to attend to the bi-fold doors on 25 October 2024. It is unclear whether this visit took place. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 30 October 2024 and said it had arranged a further contractor visit to install a new bi-fold door to the kitchen pantry on 6 November 2024. The contractor attended on the planned date but was unable to complete the work. The landlord’s records show that this was due to the resident refusing the work on the basis that she wanted a specific operative to attend.
While this Service recognises the resident’s refusal of the work as a mitigating factor in the circumstances, the fact remains that the work was booked for a date 82 working days after the landlord was put on notice about the repair. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs and it is unclear why this delay occurred. This was inappropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the kitchen entrance door had been repaired but the pantry door replacement was outstanding. It said the contractor had experienced difficulty arranging a suitable appointment with the resident due to her ongoing health issues. The landlord said it was committed to completing the work and asked the resident to confirm her availability.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident has said the pantry door has still not been replaced. It is unclear why this is the case. This is unreasonable.

Repairs to the kitchen sink

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was not previously aware of any issues with the kitchen sink and would arrange for a contractor to attend to unblock it. There are no further records relating to the kitchen sink until the resident’s email of 16 October 2024.
The evidence shows that a contractor unblocked the sink and fitted a new mixer tap on 6 November 2024. This was 71 working days after the landlord said it would arrange the repair. It is unclear why this delay occurred. This was inappropriate.

External works

It is unclear when the landlord was first put on notice about the issues with the resident’s garden. In the resident’s initial email to us on 9 May 2024, the resident said that the garden was full of debris following storms which had also damaged her patio and decking. She said the landlord had boarded up her shed following an attempted break-in but had not taken any further action. The resident was therefore unable to access her shed, which she needed to store mobility equipment.
The landlord first contacted a contractor about potential garden works on 17 April 2024. It asked the contractor to contact the resident to arrange an assessment of the garden. The contractor emailed the landlord on 3 May 2024 confirming it had assessed the garden. Due to the extent of the work required and the resident’s health concerns, it recommended that the work be carried out in 4 phases.
In internal emails dated 7 May 2025, the landlord highlighted that the garden work would need careful management in consideration of the resident’s health conditions and support needs. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord intended to take an approach that was tailored and sensitive to the resident as an individual, as recommended in our spotlight report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 June 2024 to confirm that the first phase of the garden works had been agreed. It asked the resident to confirm her availability for a home visit to discuss any support needs she may have. While it is unclear why there was a delay of over 1 month in agreeing the first phase of garden works, it was reasonable for the landlord to take a proactive approach to assessing the resident’s support needs in relation to the works.
On 15 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and asked her availability for a visit. It said it had been trying to contact the resident for a week to discuss the garden maintenance work but had been unsuccessful. The resident responded asking the landlord to “stop harassing” her as she was at the hospital daily. She requested confirmation that all garden maintenance work would be completed, not phase work.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on the same day expressing distress about the outstanding garden work. She asked again for confirmation that all garden maintenance work would be completed without phase work. While we recognise that these emails were obstructive to the landlord’s planned works, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to explain why phase work was appropriate. There is no evidence that it did so, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had agreed a schedule of garden maintenance works with a contractor but had been informed that the resident had refused access to the contractor on several occasions. The landlord said it needed the resident’s permission to proceed and asked her to provide her availability within the next 14 days. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to work cooperatively with the resident and provide a clear timeframe for a response.
The landlord committed to addressing the damaged fencing and front garden path clearance as part of the wider garden maintenance work in its stage 1 response. Given that the resident’s availability was impacted by her health concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to group works together to reduce the number of appointments needed.
The landlord maintained that the shed was the resident’s responsibility to repair or replace in its stage 1 response. The landlord has since provided a schedule of agreed works which includes installation of a new shed. It was reasonable for the landlord to adjust its position of the shed in consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the importance of the shed as storage for her disability equipment.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had agreed with the resident that the external maintenance works would be postponed and carried out in spring 2025 alongside the boiler replacement. It said it would contact the resident in due course to arrange the work. On 8 May 2025 a contractor emailed the landlord and confirmed it had agreed with the resident that works would start on 12 May 2025. It is understood that these works are ongoing.

Summary and conclusions

While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a repair request, this will often require an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. This is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally. While this Service does not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing works to go ahead on all occasions, any delays which occurred because of the resident declining or missing appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
Due to much of the resident’s correspondence with the landlord taking place in person, we have been unable to see evidence to confirm several agreements between the landlord and resident such as that for work to start in spring 2025.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to some of the resident’s repair reports and showed consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property, including external garden maintenance amount to maladministration. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about the repairs to her property on several occasions. This caused inconvenience and time and effort to the resident, who repeatedly contacted both the landlord and this Service to request updates.
2. the landlord failed to complete the repairs to the house alarm, bi-fold doors, and kitchen sink within a reasonable time and failed to explain the reasons for any delays. This caused distress to the resident, which she voiced to the landlord on multiple occasions.
3. the landlord failed to keep clear and contemporaneous records of repair visits and correspondence with the resident, which made it difficult to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in all circumstances of the case.
4. the landlord failed to acknowledge and address all of the failures identified in this report through its complaint responses. The landlord did not put things right in a way that was proportionate to the failings, which is not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The resident said the impact caused to her by the failings identified has been significant. In correspondence with this Service, the resident said that she felt unable to enjoy her home. She has also said the outstanding repairs and length of time taken to resolve the issue have caused her extreme distress.
To acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £650 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
We have also ordered the landlord to produce a written schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman clearly setting out all outstanding repairs and garden maintenance works, together with indicative timescales for completion, which must then be adhered to.

The resident’s complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 July 2024, which was 10 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate in line with the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 October 2024. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2025 and asked it to respond to the resident at stage 2 by 11 February 2025.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025 after it received a final chaser from this Service. This was 86 working days after the resident escalated her complaint and 5 working days after the deadline provided by this Service. The landlord failed to comply with its policy timescales and the Code and did not acknowledge or apologise for any complaint handling delays in its stage 2 response. This was inappropriate.
Section 5.9. of the Code sets out that where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales it sets out, the landlord must agree suitable intervals with the resident for keeping them informed about their complaint. The landlord did not inform the resident of any need for an extension to provide its stage 2 response, nor did it keep the resident informed following her escalation request. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses were thorough and clearly set out the landlord’s position regarding each individual aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided guidance to the resident on how to raise new repair issues where required. This was reasonable.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is due to:
1. the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response to the resident, which was significantly outside of the timescales presented in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
2. the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
3. the landlord’s failure to agree an extension with the resident or keep her informed on her complaint progress at stage 2.
4. the above failings caused inconvenience and time and effort to the resident, who contacted this service multiple times for help getting a response from the landlord.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This recognises the inconvenience and time and effort caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her request for adaptations to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to her property, including external garden maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident a total of £750 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £650 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by the failures identified in its repairs handling.
  2. £100 to recognise the inconvenience and time and effort caused to the resident by the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. produce a written schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman clearly setting out all outstanding repairs and garden maintenance works, together with indicative timescales for completion, which must then be adhered to.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to provide information and an offer of support around requesting new adaptations, should the resident wish to request any.