Wigan Council (202315805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315805

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

7 April 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 repairs to the:
1. external drainage.
2. garden outhouse.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy that began on 26 September 2022. He has a 2-bedroom house with a rear garden and an outhouse.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord raised a job to inspect the resident’s external drain because of “excessive flooding around the property”. The resident chased the landlord, and it said it attended on 8 December 2022. It found a land drain was required in the back garden, the kitchen floor needed sealing, and a new back door needed to be installed. But it did not raise further work for this.
The resident chased the landlord. It subsequently raised a job on 18 January 2023 to “reflag the gable and rear elevations” and to install an ACO drain gable to the rear elevation and around the house running into the gully to remove the flooding. The resident frequently contacted the landlord for updates, and the work began on or around 27 February 2023. However, on 10 March 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he was previously advised by operatives that they would return the following week to complete the work. But they had not returned. It is unclear if this work was later completed.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord raised an inspection because the outhouse roof was leaking. On 22 June 2023, while chasing the inspection, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the bricks as the floor was cracking. On 29 June 2023 he asked for the drainage to the outhouse to be checked. The landlord told the resident its surveyor inspected the outhouse on 27 June 2023 and provided him with a list of work. The resident said it had not attended and asked the landlord to treat his concerns as a complaint because:
1. he had waited all day for an inspector who did not attend.
2. the jobs the landlord said it had raised did not relate to his garden outhouse.
3. he was dissatisfied that he would have to wait another month for somebody to attend.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. However, the resident has advised that this was not received at the time. The response said:
1. its property inspector attended the wrong address on 29 June 2023. But they had attended on 26 July 2023 and found no further repairs were needed to the outhouse or the drainage.
2. it apologised for the service the resident had experienced and for any inconvenience.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 September 2023 and again on 25 September 2023. This was because he:
1. had chased a response to his complaint but had not received one.
2. wanted to be compensated for the delays for the initial inspection, completing repairs, and receiving his complaint response.
3. disagreed that no further work was required.
4. was concerned the inspector did not raise the jobs properly.
5. had not refused further work, but he was told by the operatives to “leave it to them”. However, he said they did not progress the repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It said:
1. the officer dealing with the resident’s complaint was on leave and delayed in addressing his concerns that he had not received a formal response to his complaint.
2. it tried to contact him on 12 September 2023 to clarify this situation but could not get through to him. When he called on 25 September 2023, it said it advised him of the content of the stage 1 response.
3. it acknowledged its delay in responding to the complaint. It said that this had been posted at the time. However, it ought to have explained its position when he called on 14 August 2023 to notify it that he had not received the response.
4. it was satisfied it had addressed the matter of its inspector attending the wrong address.
5. it felt it was “not inappropriate” for the same property inspector to attend, despite the resident being “unhappy” about this.
6. it had inspected the property when the resident had raised concerns about flooding to the back garden and water ingress to the outhouse. And at the time, had explained it would not replace the corrugated roofing. But it would apply a waterproofing solution to the walls. However, its surveyor was “of the understanding” that he had declined this offer.
7. since the resident had accepted the waterproofing solution when he complained, it had now completed the work.
8. a follow up visit was arranged to address his concerns about the installation of the ACO drainage. But this had not been actioned. It had since visited the property and agreed for 3 drain covers to be replaced and a small crack in the mortar to be filled in.
9. it confirmed the area needed to be cleared of dog faeces before it could continue with this work. It had agreed with him that he needed to confirm the date for it to return so it could complete the work.
10. it acknowledged that in its stage 1 response, it had said “no repairs were needed”. And this comment was made because the work on the drains was classed as a “recall” rather than a new repair. However, the wording had caused him confusion because it gave the resident the impression that no further work was required. It apologised for any confusion this had caused.
11. it offered him £100 in recognition of the missed appointment, the delays in handling the complaint, and the completion of works.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 28 November 2023 because:
1. he was dissatisfied with the communications from his landlord about the repairs and the complaint.
2. the drainage was still causing leaks and flooding in the garden.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM).
Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture important information, including:
1. when the resident made reports, when it carried out inspections and remedial work and details about what they were.
2. the reason for its delays.
3. advice provided to the resident during visits.
This contributed to the landlord’s poor management of repairs. And its failure to respond to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping in this case. This to ensure its management of repairs and associated communications are robust and up to date. It must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can prevent this from happening in future. We strongly recommend that the landlord consider the recommendations in our KIM report when it completes its review.

External drainage

The landlord is legally responsible for ensuring that the structure and exterior of the property are in repair and working order. This includes the installations for the supply of sanitation, such as external drainage. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects this.
Landlords are required to have policies and procedures to set out how they will manage their repair services effectively. It is unclear if the landlord has a repair policy because it has not provided us with one setting out its approach to repairs or any timescales it commits to when responding to a resident’s report. Therefore, the landlord must undertake a review of whether it has a policy in place. This is to ensure residents are aware of the landlord’s approach to priorities and associated timeframes regarding repairs it carries out.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The landlord’s repair records do not document when the resident first reported concerns with the drainage. However, on 15 November 2022, it raised an inspection to “clear and check all drains as [there was] excessive flooding around the property”.
There is no evidence explaining why it raised this inspection, or that it took action to progress it. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have captured this information to clarify its approach. Due to the lack of evidence in the repair records and other contemporaneous evidence, we could not be satisfied that it acted reasonably in the circumstances to respond to a repair or progress an inspection.
The landlord said it inspected on 8 December 2022 and found that a land drain was required in the back garden. Its repair records do not reflect that this inspection occurred, only that it had raised a job to inspect the drainage. The landlord made a note on the job, but it did not include a date. And said, “a land drain [was] needed in the rear garden, but [it could] not find anything [on its repair logging system] regarding [this] repair”.
Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is unclear what prompted the inspection to be raised, or, following its inspection, why it had not raised further work to install a land drain. As it did not capture this information, we were unclear about when it had identified that a land drain was required. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that the landlord had acted reasonably to progress repairs to the external drainage. This is related to a lack of information being recorded on its repair system after visits had taken place.
There is evidence that the resident chased the landlord weekly between 16 December 2022 and 17 January 2023. This was to find out which jobs had been raised to remedy the external drainage and when they would be completed. The landlord responded to the majority of these requests by chasing the responsible surveyor. However, there is no evidence that the surveyor responded or that it took action to escalate the repair. There is also no evidence about why there was a delay in raising and actioning the work. This was a series of repeated missed opportunities to progress the repair and communicate with the resident about what it intended to do to resolve his concerns. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord raised a job to “reflag [the] gable and rear elevations. [Install the] ACO drain to [the] gable, rear elevation and around the outhouse running to the gully on [the] rear corners to remove the flooding situation”. The resident chased the landlord on 9 February 2023, and it provided the resident with a target completion date of 16 February 2023. The resident chased the landlord on 17 and 23 February 2023 because it had not attended.
There is contemporaneous evidence from the resident that suggests the landlord started work on or around 27 February 2023. However, the information is unclear about which work was completed. Further, this was 3 months after it was aware of “flooding” issues in the garden (in November 2022). There is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident the reason for its delay. In the absence of evidence, we were not satisfied that the landlord’s delay was unavoidable. This caused distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble to the resident who had been chasing it to complete the work.
Further, the resident told the landlord on 14 March 2023 that the work remained incomplete. He said operatives had told him they would return to complete the job another day. But he said they did not return.
There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair records to demonstrate that it attended to complete any work during this time. This extends to a failure to capture any partly completed work on the drainage. As such, we could not be satisfied that work had been completed, so we could not conclude that the landlord took reasonable steps to remedy the flooding in the resident’s garden. Had only part of the work been completed, we would have expected the landlord to have noted in its repair log and it to have responded to the resident to explain what was happening in those 3 weeks (27 February 2023 to 14 March 2023).
On 26 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to inspect the drainage, because he felt it had been badly installed. It is unclear if the ACO drainage was fully or partially installed at this stage. The landlord’s records reasonably ought to have set this out. That it did not was a failure to provide evidence of what action it had taken to resolve the drainage problems.
We note the landlord visited the property on 26 July 2023 as part of its investigations into the outhouse. However, it is unclear if the drainage was also inspected. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord’s repair records to set out whether it had inspected the drainage and any conclusions it had drawn from its inspection.
On 24 October 2023, the landlord re-raised the same job as the one it raised on 18 January 2023. It said in its repair records dated 2 November 2023, “it visited the property the week before” and found 3 drain covers were bent and not level. And there was a small piece of mortar missing from the gully dish. It is unclear what prompted its visit.
The landlord took 4 months after the resident’s report in July 2023 to inspect the property. The evidence does not demonstrate it acted reasonably between 26 July 2023 and 2 November 2023 to progress an inspection, or the subsequent repairs required to the drainage. There is also no evidence to explain the delay. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that this was unavoidable. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord had communicated its position about the drainage to the resident during this time, including which work was required to take place and when. That it did not was also a failure because it is important for a landlord to clearly explain its priorities and timescales to residents and, if they cannot be met, explain why more time is needed.
The landlord said it could not complete the work it had identified in November 2023 until the resident had cleaned the garden. It said it placed the onus on the resident to rebook the work. However, the resident disputes that this was the case and said it had agreed to return in the following days. We have no evidence from the time of the inspection setting out the advice given to the resident. The landlord’s repair records ought to have reasonably captured what advice was given to the resident at the time of the appointment. That it did not was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it had engaged effectively with the resident about how it would complete the repair.
Ultimately, the landlord remained responsible for completing work on the drainage. As such, it ought to have continued to progress the repairs and made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident so it could reattend to remedy the flooding. That it did not was a failure to take adequate steps to monitor and progress the repair.

Post complaint procedure

The resident continued to chase the landlord to complete the work on the drainage. It is unclear if this was ever completed. The resident told us that the flooding remains an issue. The landlord said it completed work on the drainage in May 2024.

Conclusion

Our KIM report states: “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so.” We consider the absence of records in this case was a detrimental failure because the landlord’s evidence failed to explain what happened and why throughout its handling of repairs to the drainage.
The landlord consistently failed to demonstrate it was actively monitoring, progressing, and actioning repairs to the drainage. This appeared to be linked to failing to record actions for surveyors’ visits and then failing to raise associated work. Meanwhile, the resident spent a disproportionate amount of time chasing the landlord to inspect and complete work. Further, as a result of its record keeping, it often failed to provide timely updates about what it was going to do and when. This generated more time and inconvenience to the resident who was trying to get the work to progress.
It is unclear at the time of writing this report whether the efforts the landlord made were lasting or effective during the 12 months our investigation has covered (November 2022 to November 2023). As such, we consider the landlord unreasonably delayed and failed to effectively coordinate its approach to the repairs. Given the failures we have identified, we consider that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for the overall delays in “completion of work”. It offered £100 cumulatively for the delays in fixing the drainage and the outhouse. We consider that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failures we found. Specifically, it did not identify or consider the overall delay and distress of its repair approach, the poor record keeping that underpinned this, nor the time and trouble of the resident in chasing it.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its failures and to pay the resident £350 in recognition of this. The landlord must also contact the resident to confirm whether the drainage issues have been resolved. It must also assess any further detriment to the resident for any further delays experienced by the resident between 4 December 2023 and when it completes the repairs.

Garden outhouse

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for any shed or outbuilding in the garden, which he must maintain to a reasonable standard and keep free from rubbish.
Although the resident’s tenancy agreement does not place an obligation on the landlord to maintain the outhouse, the landlord’s records show it assumed some responsibility for assessing the building both during this complaint and historically. This is because it noted in its repair records that “extensive work” had been raised previously. Further, it took steps throughout the complaint to inspect the outhouse. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the landlord set an expectation for the resident that it would attend and inspect the outhouse.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord raised a job to inspect the outhouse roof as it was leaking. It is unclear from the records what prompted it to do this. The resident took the following action:
1. on 28 May 2023 he called to chase the inspection as nobody had attended.
2. on 22 June 2023 he asked the landlord to also check the brickwork of the outhouse.
It is unclear from the records what the landlord did to respond to the resident’s contact attempts. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it had responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord told us an inspection was due to take place on 27 June 2023. The resident told the landlord that an inspection had been arranged to take place on 29 June 2023.
The repair records are silent about when the inspection was arranged. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to clarify when the inspection was due to take place. There is evidence that the resident called it on 29 June 2023 to explain nobody had attended. The resident was told the surveyor had attended and raised a job for a soil stack at the side of the house. The resident explained that this job did not correlate with a prospective inspection of the outhouse. He then raised a complaint. He also chased the landlord on 2 further occasions to progress the inspection.
The landlord said in its contemporaneous evidence around 3 July 2023, that it had attended, but the resident was not available, so repairs were ordered based on what could be seen. As these repairs were not urgent, it said it had raised another inspection. It was unclear when this was booked for. The resident said he was dissatisfied because it would take another month for an inspection to take place.
The resident called the landlord on 14 July 2023 to explain nobody had attended to inspect the outhouse. It said it had attended, referring to the previous appointment in June 2023 where it said it could not gain access. The resident had to repeat his concerns that the work raised after this inspection did not correlate with the outhouse. He asked a manager to call him before a further inspection took place and requested a different surveyor attend.
The missing records around the initial inspection meant the landlord was unable to effectively deal with the resident’s repeated concerns about whether the inspection took place. It is also clear that the resident relayed his concerns on 2 further occasions, and the landlord missed these opportunities to investigate this matter further and identify that it had not attended the right property. Had it done so, it would have avoided the time and trouble and distress of the resident. It would also have been in a position to try to put things right sooner.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a call before the inspection took place. Had it done so, it could have explained its position and managed the resident’s expectations over whether the same inspector would attend. That it did not was a missed opportunity to engage with the resident in a meaningful way and manage his expectations about the inspection.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the property inspector attended on 29 June 2023 but went to the wrong address. It apologised for the service experienced and any inconvenience caused. While we consider this was reasonable, it was not a proportionate response, given that it ought to have been aware of the opportunities it missed to deal with this matter at the outset. This resulted in further avoidable delays in inspecting the outhouse. And caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord also said in its formal response it had attended on 26 July 2023 to inspect the outhouse. It said that no further repairs were needed. Again, the repair records and contemporaneous evidence were silent as to whether an inspection took place. The resident does not dispute that the surveyor attended. However, he did dispute that no further works were required.
The contemporaneous notes from October 2023 indicate the resident had asked for the corrugated roof to be replaced with a sturdier material. The landlord said it advised that it would not replace the roof for a single brick outhouse. However, it said it offered to apply waterproof paint to the walls as gesture of goodwill. It said the resident declined this. The resident disputed that this work had been declined in his escalation request in September 2023.
Our spotlight report ‘KIM’ states that “Creating a detailed record may take time, but it will save a great deal more time and trouble later when it is easily located and referred to when resolving an issue”. The landlord ought to have updated its repair records with the findings of its inspection and the advice it had given the resident after its inspection.
The only information made available to us was in contemporaneous records and was prompted by the investigation of the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to explicitly record the most up-to-date position of the repairs required and advice given at the time of the inspection. Had it done so, it could have consulted its records at the outset and been in a position to manage the resident’s expectations more clearly about what it intended to do and why. The landlord’s approach overall was uncoordinated and caused avoidable distress as well as time and trouble to the resident chasing the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it was “under the impression” the resident had declined the waterproofing work. It said it had raised this job, and it had since been completed. The repair records confirm the job was raised on 20 October 2023, but not that it was completed. That it could not demonstrate it had carried out the work was a failure.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord took 2 months to inspect and confirm no further work was required to the outhouse. It was responsible for its avoidable delays. This was exacerbated by poor engagement with the resident. Further, its record keeping restricted its ability to understand which inspections had taken place, when, which work had been offered, and what advice had been given to the resident. This meant it consistently missed opportunities to evaluate its repair approach and to identify the missed inspection in June 2023 at an earlier opportunity. There was also a disregard for the resident’s continued explanation that the initial inspection had not taken place. The landlord’s approach was uncoordinated and relied on the resident taking time and trouble to intervene to progress the inspections. In light of this, we have made a finding of maladministration.
As referred to earlier, we have used our Dispute Resolution Principles to assess the landlord’s actions to remedy its failures. The landlord apologised for and offered £100 cumulatively for its delays, including the missed appointment and carrying out the work to the outhouse. We consider that the landlord did not acknowledge all of the failures we found, which it reasonably ought to have been aware of. Therefore, its offer of redress was not sufficient.
As such, we consider it reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident as a result of its approach to inspections and repairs to the outhouse. It must also pay the resident £150 in recognition of this. The landlord must also contact the resident to ensure that the waterproofing work was completed and effective.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Landlords must also have responded to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving them.
The landlord’s complaint policy in force at the time, committed to responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days. It is positive to note that its current complaint policy now aligns with the timeframes set out in the current Code.
The resident made a complaint on 29 June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was a departure from the former Code, which stated complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaint procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
The resident chased the landlord weekly throughout July 2023 for a response. There is no evidence that it responded and explained when it would issue a response. Had it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, the landlord would have been in a position to manage his expectations around when it would issue its response. That it did not was also a missed opportunity. This would have mitigated some of the time and trouble caused to the resident in trying to progress the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. This was 32 working days after the complaint was made. This was a failure because it responded outside of the timeframes in both the landlord’s complaint policy and the former Code. There is also no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident a clear timeframe for when the response would be received. This was a further departure from the former Code.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a complaint response during September 2023. The landlord delayed in responding to this because it did not contact him until 12 September 2023 to discuss his concerns. This was after it had logged his escalation request.
The landlord recognised it had delayed in responding to his contact and that it had missed an opportunity to relay its stage 1 position at the same time. It noted it had sent its response via post. It apologised for this during stage 2 of its process and explained this was due to the officer responsible for the complaint going on annual leave. While it was reasonable to acknowledge its mistake, it did not explain how it would maintain continuity for complaint handling while staff were on leave in the future. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate any wider learning it had taken to prevent this from occurring in the future.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 45 working days later. This was a significant departure from the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and the former Code. We recognise the landlord explained in its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request on 17 October 2023 that it would respond by 6 November 2023. However, this was communicated 32 working days after his escalation request. The landlord ought to have taken steps to contact the resident at an earlier opportunity to explain its delay and the reason for this. That it did not was a failure.
Overall, there were persistent delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. This caused the resident time and trouble pursuing his complaint. Although the landlord offered an apology and explanation for its delays, it missed an opportunity to learn from its mistakes. We recognise the landlord tried to put things right by offering a cumulative £100, which also included its delay in complaint handling at stage 2. However, we consider that this was not sufficient to address its poor communication around the complaint process, as well as its delays.
In line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’, the landlord must offer £100 to recognise the detriment caused to the resident by its failures. The landlord must also demonstrate that it has arranged for complaint handling training within the last 12 months to ensure staff are aware of their obligations under the current Code. This is to ensure complaints are progressed and engaged with in a timely manner.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s external drainage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s garden outhouse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £600 broken down as follows:
  1. £350 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the repairs to the external drainage.
  2. £150 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the repairs to the outhouse.
  3. £100 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the complaint.

This replaces any compensation awarded during the complaints process. The landlord is entitled to deduct any sums already paid to the resident from the total amount of compensation set out above.

contact the resident to confirm that repairs to the external drainage and waterproofing of the outhouse have been completed and are effective.
provide evidence of having given complaint handling training to relevant staff in the last 12 months, which includes obligations around timeframes for responding to complaints. Otherwise, it must arrange to do so.
write to the resident to assess any further detriment caused to him between 4 December 2023 and when the repairs were completed to the external drainage and the outhouse. This must include a breakdown of any compensation it awards. It must also provide us with a copy of its decision and associated calculation.
it must review its handling of the repairs in this case, and the failings identified by us. In doing so, if it does not have a repairs policy in place, it should assess whether it needs to draft and/or publish a repairs policy on its website. It must write to us explaining the outcome of its review, which must set out any actions it intends to take with associated timeframes.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must assess its record keeping for the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’:
1. recommendation 2.
2. recommendation 3.
3. recommendation 7.
4. recommendation 8.