Compensation guidance

This guidance is for internal application to our casework by staff who make decisions on behalf of the Ombudsman. It’s accessible to external audiences so they may understand our approach to compensation.

We would encourage landlords to adopt a compensation policy, and to consult this guidance to inform their approach. Our orders for compensation will apply our own guidance rather than the landlord’s policy. Policy alignment will help avoid significant differences between redress offered and may help resolve cases without escalation to us. We may adopt this guidance as good practice in the future under provisions in the Social Housing (Regulation) Act.

We identify ways of putting things right which are fair in line with the circumstances of each case. Where compensation is ordered, it is reasoned and proportionate.

When investigating, we determine whether there’s been maladministration (which includes findings of service failure and severe maladministration). Where we find maladministration, we may make orders to the landlord. Our orders of compensation are not intended to punish the landlord in the way a fine or penalty might. Our orders aim to put the resident in the position they would have been had the maladministration not occurred.

Compensation will not always be ordered. We consider all possible forms of remedy and decide which are the most appropriate given the individual circumstances of the case. The impact of maladministration can affect residents in different ways, even if, superficially, it looks the same.

We consider whether there’s been an actual, evidenced, and unavoidable financial loss incurred as a direct result of the landlord’s maladministration. We decide if the landlord should compensate the resident for all or part of this loss, considering the specific circumstances of the case. This might include cases where:

• money is due to a resident but has not been paid, such as:
• • rent overpayments
  • works a landlord agreed it would pay for but did not

• costs have been reasonably incurred by a resident due to the landlord’s maladministration, such as:
  • payments for additional heating when the landlord failed to repair this or provide any alternative means of heating
  • decorating costs after repairs where ‘make good’ works have not been adequately completed

There are circumstances where we will not order compensation for a resident’s actual financial loss or costs (see section 11, ‘When we will not order compensation’).

Adding interest to actual financial loss

Where a landlord has not paid money due to a resident following actual financial loss, we may include an interest calculation. We have discretion in this area, considering the overall package of remedies ordered.

We will not usually consider adding interest unless the landlord’s delay was more than 6 months and the actual loss was more than £1,000. If we do include interest, we’ll make this clear in the investigation report and the order. We will usually base the interest calculation on the average Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period in question.

Sometimes it’s apparent there has been a significant financial loss to the resident because of the landlord’s maladministration, but it’s not always possible to quantify this. It’s reasonable to ask a resident to provide evidence of the costs they’ve incurred and how they were unavoidable, or the loss they’ve suffered. However, there may be times when no such evidence is available. This might include where items have been damaged, but the resident has not retained any proof of purchase.

We must satisfy ourselves that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident incurred costs or suffered financial loss but has not been able to evidence this. Where it’s not possible to provide a reasonable estimate, we may say a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact the resident has incurred costs which would not have arisen but for its maladministration.

Compensation based on rent charged (tenancies)

In complaints concerning the condition of the property, we may be presented with compelling evidence which leads us to conclude maladministration led to the loss of use of part or all of the property. This will include rooms being substantially impaired, meaning they could not be used for their intended purpose. Such evidence is likely to include the opinion of qualified experts, for example surveyor or environmental health reports, landlord records and/or photographic evidence.

When deciding an appropriate level of compensation, we’ll consider the level of rent charged as a financial benchmark for the loss of use. Our order is not a refund of rent paid. We’ll therefore never refer to this type of compensation as a ‘refund of rent’ or ‘rent rebate’, and we’re not concerned with the source of rent paid for the property.

We’ll consider whether there are any mitigating or aggravating factors which might affect the level of compensation ordered. This could include where a resident has occupied temporary accommodation for some of the relevant period. We will not order compensation based on rent charged where alternative accommodation was provided.

Where there’s an additional impact beyond the loss of rooms, we may also consider compensation for distress and inconvenience. This may include situations where the impact on the residual living space is more profound because of the nature of the property or household circumstances.

Relevant spaces

We consider the following spaces to be relevant when deciding a level of compensation based on rent charged:

• bedroom
• kitchen
• living room
• bathroom
• WC

We will use discretion in how to apply this guidance if a property includes a room which is not listed above (for example, a combined kitchen/living room). We will ensure that our decision making is explained.

We do not order compensation based on rent for parts of the property which connect the above rooms, or for exterior spaces. This includes hallways, landings, gardens, and balconies. However, we may order compensation for distress and inconvenience if we find the landlord’s maladministration affected the use of these spaces.

Deciding the correct sum

We’ll base the level of compensation on information obtained through the Regular of Social Housing’s rent calculator.

The start date for compensation is the date the resident reported the issue minus the reasonable repair period. The end date is when repairs were completed or the determination date if the matter is ongoing. We will not order compensation beyond the determination date, but we may in some cases make a recommendation for the landlord to consider further compensation.

A landlord also has discretion to offer additional compensation from the point of determination onwards until works are complete. The resident may choose to raise a new complaint with the landlord if they consider more compensation would be fair based on any further delay following our determination.

We use the table below to help us arrive at consistent and transparent orders. This sets out the percentage we will apply per room for a calculation of compensation based on rent charged.

Where the entire property is affected, 100% of the rent charged should be applied (before any mitigating factors). The calculation will not exceed 100% of the rent charged.

Compensation based on rent charged (leaseholders)

We may use ‘rent charged’ to calculate compensation for leaseholders, including shared owners, but this will naturally depend on the terms of the lease and the landlord’s repair responsibilities. We’ll base the level of compensation on information obtained through the Regulator of Social Housing’s rent calculator.

We may also consider ‘rent charged’, or notional rent, where a non-resident leaseholder has let the property. This will not be based on the rent charged by the non-resident leaseholder but calculated via the RSH calculator.

Our consideration of loss of use is separate to considering the individual circumstances of the impact. This will usually result in an additional compensation award.

Many landlord compensation policies set out automatic compensation payments for common failings relating to non-provision of specific services. When we assess the reasonableness of a landlord’s compensation offer, we will take into account whether and how it applied its compensation policy (see section 12, ‘Consideration of a landlord’s offer of compensation’).

When we award compensation to recognise the non-provision of the specific services set out below, we use our own guideline amounts (see appendix 1, ‘Specific compensation orders’) to ensure fair outcomes. The exception is where the landlord’s compensation policy sets out higher levels of compensation for the same specific services. In this situation, our orders will reflect the higher amount. This is so the resident isn’t disadvantaged because we, rather than the landlord, identified the failings and took action to put them right.

We may award additional compensation under another heading (see section 9, ‘Impact of service failings’) if the impact on the resident is significant and exceptional. This may include:

• where the resident has a health condition which requires an uninterrupted power supply, and the landlord’s maladministration causes an additional impact
• recognition of loss of holiday entitlements or income due to the landlord's repeated and serious failure to attend appointments (while not reimbursing actual costs for these – see section 11, ‘When we will not order compensation’)

We will ensure we do not order compensation for the same impact of a landlord’s maladministration more than once.

In all cases where awards of compensation for specific services are made, we must hold compelling evidence which leads us to conclude the impact resulted from the landlord’s maladministration.

Loss of heating and hot water

To award compensation here, we will be satisfied the resident has experienced a loss of heating and/or hot water within their individual property resulting from landlord maladministration. We will be satisfied the landlord was made aware, or should have reasonably been aware, of the loss of service but failed to restore it within relevant and/or reasonable timescales. Compensation will start from the end of this timescale.

Compensation for the partial loss of heating and/or hot water may be based on a proportion of the set amounts.

A specific compensation order will not be made where the landlord has failed to restore heating to the property but has provided a reasonable, alternative heating supply.

Loss of power

To award compensation here, we will be satisfied the resident has experienced a loss of power within the individual property resulting from landlord maladministration. We will be satisfied the landlord was made aware, or should have reasonably been aware, of the loss of service but failed to restore it within relevant and/or reasonable timescales. Compensation will start from the end of this timescale.

Compensation for partial loss of power may be based on a proportion of our set amounts. Where a loss of power also affects heating and/or hot water provision, compensation will be awarded for both loss of power and heating and/or hot water.

Compensation for additional loss or costs caused by a loss of power may be considered distinctly to specific compensation orders (see section 5, ‘Quantifiable financial loss’, and section 11, ‘When we will not order compensation’). This may include:

• perishables
• loss of cooking facilities, and the associated cost of purchasing ready prepared food

Specific compensation will not be ordered where the loss of power was due to planned works, where reasonable notice was provided, and works were completed to time. Where there is impact arising from the landlord’s maladministration in these circumstances, we may order other compensation (see section 9, ‘Impact of other service failings’).

Set amounts or rent charged?

Where the loss of heating, hot water, or power renders a room substantially impaired (unable to be used for its intended purpose), we will not use our set compensation amounts. Instead, we’ll calculate compensation based on the rent charged (see section 7, ‘Loss of use of the property’).

Non-provision of a service where a service charge is paid

Set amounts of compensation for loss of heating, hot water, and power will not apply where these services are paid through service charges (fixed or variable). In these cases, compensation will usually be determined by the level of the charge.

Missed appointments

To award compensation here, we will be satisfied the resident was required to attend a pre-arranged appointment, whether at the property or otherwise, and the appointment was missed due to landlord maladministration. This may include where:

• the appointment was missed without any notice given to the resident
• the landlord or its representatives attended the property, but did not comply with pre-agreed reasonable adjustments so the appointment could not take place
• the appointment could not go ahead as the landlord or its representatives were unreasonably late, usually by 2 hours or more, and the resident could not facilitate the later appointment time

Compensation will not usually be ordered where the landlord was unable to attend the appointment for good reason. For example, staff sickness or parts not being available as expected, and reasonable notice, usually of 24 hours or more, was given to the resident.

Compensation will not be ordered where the appointment was missed or could not go ahead because of a resident’s actions, whether intentional or otherwise. For example, the resident missed reasonable notification of the appointment or did not enable access to the property.

We may order a landlord to pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable detriment (distress and inconvenience or time and trouble), or other unfair impact arising from the maladministration. The impact cannot simply be remedied by a financial payment, but we may order a landlord to make a payment to acknowledge how the resident has been affected.

This will be considered:

• when the resident has experienced an emotional impact or considerable effort because of a landlord’s maladministration
• even if the resident has been compensated for actual financial losses, and the landlord has taken action to return them to the position they would have been in but for its maladministration
• in exceptional cases, in addition to our specific compensation orders. For example, where the impact of the landlord’s maladministration is more profound because of known vulnerabilities

We’ll consider what the resident has told us about the impact of the failings, including how they felt. We’ll consider this in line with the facts of the case and the evidence held.

To assist us in making consistent and proportionate orders, we consider our recommended ranges for compensation, depending on the level of impact caused by the maladministration (see appendix 3, ‘Compensation for impact of other service failings’) These ranges are guidelines and not prescriptive, and it’s important we consider the cumulative impact of a landlord’s maladministration.

We do not automatically consider whether a resident should be compensated against each possible heading. We decide the most appropriate way to recognise the adverse effect on them. We do not set minimum or maximum compensation levels, and caseworkers have discretion when considering individual cases to decide what’s fair in the circumstances.

Distress and inconvenience

Residents will often describe how they’ve been affected by the situation that’s led to their complaint. This might include the impact on their family life, use of their home, employment, or health and emotional wellbeing. The impact of maladministration can affect residents in different ways, even if, superficially, it looks the same.

Some residents will set impact within the context of their mental and/or physical health and explain how a landlord’s maladministration has affected them or exacerbated existing health conditions. We’re not best placed to assess whether a landlord’s maladministration has negatively affected a resident’s physical and/or mental health, so we cannot directly quantify this (see section 11, ‘When we will not order compensation’).

However, we may order a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a landlord’s maladministration. This can include:

• stress, anxiety, worry, frustration, shock, upset, embarrassment, annoyance, and uncertainty
• raised expectations - wrong information leading to disappointment.
• feeling unfairly treated compared to others
• problems caused by delays in a landlord resolving matters or poor complaint handling
• loss of opportunity – where we can establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it’s likely the resident would have received some benefit or gain if not for the landlord’s maladministration

We’ll consider the practical impacts on a household that have resulted from a landlord’s maladministration, such as:

• loss of holiday entitlements or income due to the landlord's repeated failure to attend appointments (while not reimbursing actual costs for these – see section 11, ‘When we will not order compensation’, and section 8, ‘Specific compensation orders’)
• avoidable delays in resolving repair issues that cause inconvenience
• failure to follow procedures resulting in delays in addressing and/or resolving an issue
• failure to return phone calls or respond to emails/letters, resulting in further delays in resolving an issue

When assessing the impact of the distress and inconvenience we consider:

• the severity of the situation
• the length of time involved
• relevant disabilities or vulnerabilities of the resident
• any other relevant factors

Time and trouble

Residents will often incur some time, trouble, and minor costs when requesting a service from their landlord or pursuing a complaint. If the landlord's maladministration means unreasonable extra effort is needed, compensation may be appropriate for ‘time and trouble’. Examples may include:

• repeated failure to log or progress a complaint
• not addressing all complaint issues
• failure to respond to reasonable contacts, in relation to a substantive issue or complaint
• repeated failure to attend appointments or complete agreed actions during appointments
• communication or knowledge management failures leading to a resident having to make multiple reports on the same issue
• overall poor communication or complaint handling
• ignoring reasonable adjustment requests

Aggravating and mitigating factors

Aggravating factors

We recognise the impact experienced by a resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same impact in response to the same maladministration. This might be due to their circumstances, or because of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased order of compensation to reflect the specific impact on the resident.

Assessment of the impact on a resident’s physical or mental health often requires medical expertise and a finding on liability. We’re therefore not best placed to assess this, but we’ll recognise the resident’s circumstances in our remedies. Examples of aggravating factors might include (but are not limited to) where the resident:

• has a mental health condition - e.g. it’s evident the impact of the maladministration has been felt more keenly by them
• has young children - e.g. an extended period in temporary accommodation because of repair delays causes significant inconvenience and upset
• is disabled - e.g. the daily impact of emergency temporary accommodation because of failure to comply with repairing obligations
• is responsible for a dependant with a disability - e.g. a delayed repair response could have increased impact
• has experienced a history of mishandling by the landlord which has resulted in cumulative impact

Mitigating factors

We’ll consider whether the resident’s actions contributed to the situation. We’ll consider whether they exacerbated, or failed to minimise, the impact. These factors may mitigate or reduce the level of compensation ordered. Examples may include the resident:

• failing to communicate clearly with, or respond to contact from, the landlord.
• failing to bring matters to a landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe
• refusing help to make a coherent complaint
• repeatedly refusing to allow a landlord reasonable access to the property to resolve the matters complained of
• pursuing a complaint in an unreasonable or excessive way

We’ll also consider mitigating factors in the landlord’s actions which may, overall, affect the level of compensation we order. Examples may include:

• arranging for the resident to occupy temporary alternative accommodation for some or all of the relevant period
• a reasonable offer of redress with equivalent financial value, e.g. an offer to replace rather than repair
• offering a generous sum of compensation for identified failings, the total of which also addresses some of the failings not identified

See section 12, ‘Consideration of a landlord’s offer of compensation’, for other ways we assess an offer.

There may be occasions where the nature of the maladministration places the complaint within one range, but the number and duration of the failings cause an impact which justifies higher compensation. Deciding the compensation will be a judgement based on the individual elements of maladministration, the number of failings, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.

Statutory payments

These are payments relating to specific housing activities which are set out in legislation. We should consider whether any statutory payments are relevant to the circumstances of the case but have not been paid by the landlord. Such payments include (but are not limited to):

• home loss – a person might be entitled to a home loss payment if they’re displaced from their home for demolition, redevelopment, or compulsory purchase
• disturbance – payments made to compensate a person for reasonable moving expenses. People who do not qualify for a home loss payment may be entitled to a disturbance payment
• Right to Repair - allows for compensation when a landlord fails to complete certain repairs within a specified timeframe

When considering complaint handling in our investigations, the full range of outcomes can be applied to reflect the standard of service provided by the landlord, the severity of any failings, the impact on the resident, and the effect on the substantive issue being complained about.

However, we recognise that the impact of failings which are specifically linked to a landlord’s complaint handling will usually be less than those associated with the substantive issue. This is reflected in our compensation awards, and we use our own guideline amounts (appendix 2, ‘Compensation for complaint handling’) to ensure fair outcomes.

Factors to consider when assessing a complaint handling remedy include (but are not limited to):

• the length of any delay at each stage of the complaints process
• any improper refusal/failure to log a complaint
• failure to adequately address points of complaint
• failure to recognise or adequately explain complaint handling failings
• time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing complaint responses
• unprofessional or unsympathetic complaint responses
• impact of complaint handling delays on the resolution of the substantive issue
• failure to adhere to the Complaint Handling Code

Record keeping

We will not order compensation for record keeping failures, even if we’ve made a specific finding for record keeping. There may be circumstances where poor record keeping has directly impacted the resident, but this should be addressed by our orders in relation to the substantive issue.

For example, where multiple repairs appointments were needed because outcomes were not properly recorded, we might make an award for distress and inconvenience or time and trouble for the landlord’s handling of the repairs, rather than for its poor record keeping. Other types of orders should be considered to address a landlord’s poor record keeping practices.

Requesting a service or making a complaint

Residents are most likely to contact their landlord or us when something goes wrong, or they need help to fix a problem. They’ll often incur some time, trouble, and minor costs when requesting a service or pursuing a complaint with the landlord or us. We will not order compensation just because a resident has found it necessary to do so, or where they’ve experienced a one-off minor delay or inconvenience.

Legal damages

We do not make decisions on matters such as negligence, liability, or discrimination, and we do not always order compensation in the same way a court might.

Residents may connect a landlord’s maladministration with a decline in their physical and/or mental health, but we’re not best placed to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. Such a claim would usually be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through a court, where evidence from independent medical experts can be examined. However, we can consider general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of a landlord’s maladministration and will consider whether any aggravating factors apply.

Insurance claims

We do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. In some cases, it will be appropriate for a landlord to direct a resident to make an insurance claim rather than pursue all or part of their concerns as a complaint (see our ‘Guidance on complaints involving insurance’).

We do not have jurisdiction over a landlord’s insurers and cannot comment on the decisions they reach. However, we can comment on the way a landlord has communicated with the resident around the matter of an insurance claim or managed the progress of that claim. We can, therefore, order a landlord to help a resident make an insurance claim or provide further information in that regard.

Loss of personal belongings

Residents often tell us they want reimbursing for loss or damage to personal belongings. For example, they may say their furniture has been damaged due to a landlord’s failure to address a long-term damp problem. In some cases, a claim may have already been considered by a landlord’s insurers, and that may mean we would not consider the claim for reimbursement again. That is because we do not have jurisdiction over a landlord’s insurers.

However, we might consider any evidence that was not available to, or considered by, the landlord’s insurers at the time the claim was made. In such cases, we may order a landlord to pay compensation as reimbursement of actual costs or in recognition of the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Loss of wages or holiday entitlement

We will not generally order a landlord to reimburse a resident for time off work, loss of wages, or loss of employment while repairs are carried out. Works will often cause some inconvenience to residents, but their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. It would not be fair or reasonable for us to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for routine appointments.

Equally, if a resident takes time off work because of the impact a complaint is having on them, we will not generally order a landlord to reimburse for this. For example, where a resident is experiencing noise nuisance resulting in sleepless nights and time off work, it would not be fair for us to order a landlord to reimburse for the impact of the actions of a third party.

However, there may be circumstances where we decide it would be appropriate for a landlord to compensate for the associated distress and inconvenience caused. For example, where repairs appointments fail to resolve the repair issue, so unnecessary time is taken off work (see section 9, ‘Impact of service failings’). Or where the landlord has failed to respond to reports of noise nuisance, so a neighbour is allowed to continually interrupt a resident’s peaceful enjoyment of their home, and they take time off work as a result.

Loss of opportunity

A resident may feel they’ve missed out on a chance to gain a benefit or avoid a loss due to the action or inaction of their landlord. This is often referred to as a ‘loss of opportunity’ or a ‘loss of chance’. We will not consider such claims in their legal sense as this would require a finding of breach of contract or negligence. However, we can consider whether a landlord’s maladministration has, on the balance of probabilities, caused some detriment to the resident, including distress and inconvenience.

No prior notice to landlord

We will not order a landlord to reimburse a resident’s costs if it was not given a chance to fix the issue first. For example, if a resident pays for a contractor to complete a repair without reporting the repair to the landlord, we generally will not expect the landlord to reimburse these costs. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to inspect the issue and assess for itself if a repair was needed.

Additional unforeseen costs and avoidable expenses

We expect landlords to have a complaints process that is fair and accessible to all, and residents should not need to seek legal advice to make a complaint. If residents do incur costs like solicitor fees to pursue a complaint, we will not generally reimburse these.

Residents may incur costs employing other professionals to pursue a complaint, such as a surveyor in a repairs case. Where a landlord is responding to a service request in some way, residents should not need to make their own arrangements in this way. We’ll consider all costs on a case-by-case basis, but these would generally only be reimbursed in exceptional circumstances.

Where a resident has incurred costs and we think the landlord should reimburse some or all of them, we’ll consider what’s fair and reasonable to resolve the specific complaint. For example, a resident complains about garden drainage issues and the landlord fails to respond. The resident pays for a contractor to resolve the drainage issues but also has aesthetic landscaping work done at the same time. We’d only expect the landlord to contribute towards resolving the drainage issues which were the subject of the complaint, not the extra works the resident chose to have done.

Repayment of rent

We may make orders based on rent-charged to reflect the loss of use of part of the property (see section 7, ‘Loss of use of the property’). However, this is made in recognition of the loss of use and is not a ‘refund’ or ‘repayment’ of rent.

We may order a landlord to repay overpaid rent, which may have arisen from a calculation error or other maladministration.

We encourage all landlords to develop a standalone compensation policy.

Where the landlord has a policy, we'll consider whether and how it applied this to any failings it identified in its review of the complaint. We may also consider whether the offer made by the landlord is fair and reasonable under our own remedies guidance.

If we award additional compensation, our explanations for our compensation orders will help a landlord learn from each case.

Where a landlord does not have a stated approach to compensation, we’ll seek to establish how it arrived at its decisions through examination of the evidence. We may also make a wider order for the landlord to review its policy and practice on compensation.

Offers of compensation following conclusion of the complaint procedure

We consider offers of compensation made following conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure to be ‘late’ offers. We’ll only make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ when a landlord’s offer is made as part of its complaint procedure, and prior to a complaint being referred to us.

When a landlord offers compensation following conclusion of its complaint procedure and without our intervention, we may decide an order for further compensation is not warranted. However, we'll consider the circumstances which led to the delayed offer, and we may make alternative orders which address the lateness of the offer. These are likely to be relevant to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Arbitrary or disproportionate offers of compensation

Where a landlord makes an offer of compensation without good reason, or the sum is disproportionately large given the circumstances of the case, it’s unlikely we’ll make any further orders of compensation. However, we may make alternative orders which address any poor complaints practice identified. This is because excessive offers risk mismanaging residents’ expectations, prove unfair to other residents, and reduce complaints to financial transactions.

Settlement offers

Settlement offers, including Part 36 offers, do not automatically prevent us from investigating a complaint. This is because we’re required to investigate any complaint duly made, not withdrawn, or not referred to a member for resolution. These offers are often made prior to legal proceedings having been issued. Where the claim is the same as the complaint, or overlaps, it will affect any consideration of orders including compensation.

If the offer is made and accepted before proceedings and before our intervention, we’ll consider whether the acceptance of the offer is evidence of ‘reasonable redress’. Where there are outstanding issues which the offer did not resolve, we may make further orders. This may include compensation or other, relevant orders.

We’ll always be mindful of our comments on the offer, and the implications of us being seen to endorse an offer that has not been accepted prior to referral. Implications include a resident feeling they must accept the offer and not progress with their claim.

Local authority bankruptcy provisions

That a landlord has issued a section 114 notice does not affect our ability to make orders for compensation. Compensation we order a landlord to pay comes from a separate fund. We’ll calculate and enforce orders as usual.

Our calculation of compensation can consider many different factors, as well as the cumulative impact of a landlord’s maladministration. For each defined complaint we’ll state the compensation ordered (as relevant) and the reasons for this within the report. Evidence-based reasoning which is clearly explained leads to effective outcomes, including improved understanding of our decisions and sector learning.

We would not usually break our orders down to expressly state the mitigating or aggravating factors we’ve considered, or the associated additions or deductions we’ve made. This can hinder clarity. However, it’s important to briefly explain the factors we’ve considered and how we’ve applied this guidance in each case. The landlord and resident must be clear on the basis for all compensation orders.

Compensation for ongoing matters

The Complaint Handling Code says a complaint response must be provided when the answer is known, not when actions to resolve the complaint are completed. Therefore, a landlord might agree to certain actions, including payment of compensation, to resolve the complaint but issue its complaint response before it’s completed them.

Our investigation might find the landlord has not followed through on these actions within agreed timescales. Compensation can be considered up until the failing is corrected or until the determination date, whichever is earlier. We do not order compensation beyond the determination date, but we may make a recommendation for the landlord to consider additional compensation once actions are complete. If the resident feels the compensation offered after completion is insufficient, they can raise a new complaint with the landlord.

In its final complaint response, a landlord may commit to paying compensation for an identified failing until that failing is put right. This is often the case where there’s ongoing detriment which cannot be quantified until actions are complete, or because circumstances did not allow payment at the time. Where a landlord follows through on a commitment to pay compensation within a reasonable time, we may make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Ordering compensation when the landlord has offered a lower amount

We might order a higher level of compensation if we decide the landlord’s offer is not proportionate. Reasons may include:

• the landlord fettering its discretion by limiting its offer to amounts set out in its policy, where it has not considered the full impact caused in a complaint with exceptional circumstances
• where failings were not identified by the landlord, so not put right

The report will always explain the basis for our order. The landlord’s offer should be included within the total compensation order in our report.  For example, if the landlord’s offer was £200 and we order an additional £200, the order will be for £400 compensation, inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £200.

Offers of lump sum compensation to address multiple different issues

Sometimes a landlord offers an overall compensation amount to address a variety of different issues but does not explain how much is awarded for each point. For example, the amount might cover distress and inconvenience caused by delayed repairs, and time and trouble for chasing the repairs. Alternatively, the amount might cover compensation for a complaint about ASB and a complaint about repairs.

Where a landlord has not attributed specific amounts to each part of the complaint, we can do this. We may attribute different amounts to different categories, as we consider fair and reasonable.  This demonstrates a fair approach in considering the overall offer.

Findings of reasonable redress

We may make a finding of reasonable redress where the landlord has done enough to resolve the complaint and remedy any maladministration prior to our intervention (see section 12, ‘Consideration of a landlord’s offer of compensation’, and our ‘outcomes guidance’). In our report, we’ll make it clear that the landlord should pay any compensation which formed the basis of our reasonable redress finding. We’ll also include this as a recommendation. If we have evidence the compensation has already been paid to the resident, we’ll make this clear in the report and a recommendation will not be made.

Payments of compensation and arrears

Some landlords will want to offset a compensation payment against a resident’s rent or service charge arrears. This approach will often be set out in a landlord’s compensation policy. However, compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any financial arrangement between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. It’s particularly the case where:

• the arrears are in dispute
• the arrears are the subject of the complaint
• the landlord is legally obliged to make the payment – e.g. a statutory Home Loss or Disturbance payment
• it would not be fair to do so- e.g. where a landlord’s maladministration resulted in the arrears accruing
• the resident has incurred additional, reasonable ‘out of pocket’ expenses because of the landlord’s maladministration

Group complaints

We can accept an individual complaint as a lead case. Any decision made in that case may, in certain circumstances and where the lead resident is clearly representing named individuals, also apply to others in the same circumstances. In such cases, we may order compensation to be paid to both the lead resident and the members of the group (see our ‘Guidance on group complaints (PDF)’).

Deceased residents

We may investigate complaints referred on behalf of deceased residents by an executor or administrator of their estate, or where the resident has died following referral of their complaint. If we find there’s been maladministration, we can still order the landlord to pay compensation, despite the resident being unable to enjoy the benefit of it. In these cases, compensation must be ordered to be paid to the estate, rather than the resident or any other named individual.

We will not award compensation for distress caused to the ‘estate’ or its representatives.

Impact of compensation on benefits

Large sums of compensation may affect a resident’s entitlement to benefits. We will not take this into account when making orders for compensation. Upon receipt of our determination, it is for the resident to decide in advance of payment being made whether they wish to accept the total amount of compensation, or whether they wish to accept part or none of it.

Published in February 2026