Wandle Housing Association Limited (202310778)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310778

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 January 2025

(updated following review on 30 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:
1. communications with the resident in relation to a managed move.
2. communications with the resident in relation to the level of rent and council tax.
3. decision to remove an outbuilding.
4. handling of repairs in the property.
5. response to the resident’s concerns about the lettable standard of the property.
6. response to the resident’s request for a smart doorbell.
7. response to the resident’s concerns about a pest infestation.
8. response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments.
9. response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord for over 20 years. She moved to the property through a management transfer. She signed the tenancy agreement on 27 June 2022 and received the keys on the same day. The landlord permitted her access to the property from this date. However, the official commencement date of the tenancy was 4 July 2022.
The resident was eligible for a management transfer as she was confirmed by a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) in April 2020 as being a high risk victim of domestic abuse. The resident’s GP confirmed that both she and her adult daughter who lives with her have a “long standing history of depression, anxiety, social isolation and features of post-traumatic stress disorder”.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord received a formal complaint letter from the resident. The letter was split into 21 sections, each raising numerous complaint issues. The letter also attached supporting emails and photographs. By way of summary, we have set out below the various issues raised and aligned these to the complaint headings set out in paragraph 1 above.

Communications with the resident in relation to a managed move

The resident complained:
1. about the manner in which the landlord had handled her move ever since it added her to the management transfer list in 2020. In particular, she felt it had not taken her safety concerns into account when it made 3 different property offers.
2. she felt pressured to accept the third property as the landlord indicated it was the final offer it would make.
3. it only gave her one week to move. She asked the landlord for an extra week but it refused this “with no consideration for [her] circumstances”.
4. the landlord withheld signed tenancy documentation from her.

The level of rent and council tax

The resident said that the landlord initially told her rent would be £133 per week, but it later advised her it would be £152 “without justification of the increase”. She complained that when she queried this, its main concern was who had told her about the lower rate. She said she felt “taken advantage of”.
She also complained that the landlord did not inform her before she accepted the property that it was subject to a higher council tax band than her previous property.

Decision to remove an outbuilding

The resident said that when she accepted the offer of the property, she understood this included the outbuilding in the back garden. However, the landlord then advised her it would be removing it for health and safety reasons. She asked if she could correct any defects in order that she could keep the outbuilding. She complained that the landlord refused this request and proceeded to remove it.

The lettable standard of the property

The resident complained that the property was not of a ‘lettable standard’ when her tenancy began. She said:
1. a skip was sitting on the driveway when she first received her keys. Due to fly tipping, the skip was overflowing. She complained that she had to repeatedly contact the landlord to ensure it removed the skip and all the overflow items.
2. she emailed the landlord on the day she signed for the property, 27 June 2022, and set out a list of repair issues which she said it had previously confirmed it would attend to. The issues raised included:
  1. rubbish in the garden.
  2. overgrown grass and bushes.
  3. the ground was uneven and not safe where the landlord had removed the outbuilding.
  4. fencing was broken.
  5. a fencing trellis was missing.
  6. there was no front gate.
  7. there was no front doorbell.
  8. there were broken ceramics on the floor with sharp edges.
3. although not included in her email of 27 June 2022, there were a number of other repair issues outlined in the resident’s complaint letter that she said existed from the start of the tenancy. These included:
  1. a faulty shower head and shower rail.
  2. a blocked and stained toilet.
  3. a blocked bathroom sink.
  4. a bathroom light that was not working.
  5. an extractor fan that was loud and would not switch off.
  6. no extractor fan in the kitchen.
  7. damp and mould on the living room ceiling.
We have referred in the remainder of this report to all of the repair issues listed at points b and c above as the ‘void repairs’.

Repairs in the property

The resident complained that the landlord had not attended to numerous repairs in the property. These included the void repairs as outlined above, with the exception of the front gate. The landlord had fitted the gate on 1 July 2022. The resident said in her complaint letter that it installed it the wrong way round.
In addition to the void repairs, she listed a number of other repair issues in her complaint letter. She did not indicate whether these existed from the start of her tenancy or arose after she moved in. The additional repairs included:
1. a leaking radiator.
2. skirting board repairs.
3. a hole under an electrical socket.
4. gaps under kitchen cupboards.
5. a leaking kitchen sink.
6. the door leading out to the garden not locking.
7. an outside rear light flashing when in use.
8. an outside front light not working.
In total, combining the void repairs with the additional repairs, there were approximately 26 separate repair issues raised within the complaint.

Request for a smart doorbell

While still living in her previous property, the resident asked the landlord to install a smart doorbell for safety reasons given she was a high risk domestic abuse victim. It agreed to this in May 2022 but did not install the doorbell as she was moving to a new property. Once the resident moved, the landlord offered to install the smart doorbell in her new property but, 7 months after moving in, she was still waiting for it.

Pest infestation

The resident said her garden had been unsafe to occupy since the start of her tenancy due to “foxes constantly dominating” it. She suggested this was due to gaps in fencing and holes caused by the removal of decking.

Missed appointments

The landlord failed to attend a pre-arranged appointment in July 2022 to inspect the void repairs. The resident complained about “time wasted” waiting for it to arrive. She said that she lost out on pay unnecessarily as a result.

Staff conduct

The resident raised:
1. specific complaints about the conduct of 6 officers. This included that the officers had not responded to her correspondence. She also complained that an officer arranged to have the outbuilding destroyed out of “malicious intent”.
2. a general complaint that the landlord had breached its ‘duty of care’ towards her. She said it had “mistreated, misled, bullied and neglected” her.
3. a general complaint that staff were discussing her case across teams and in doing so were not respecting her confidentiality.
The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 January 2023. It rang the resident and spoke to her about it on 6 February 2023. She followed this up with an email the following day setting out the resolutions she sought.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023. It said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in fitting the smart doorbell. It had now ordered one. It would contact the resident by 10 February 2023 to arrange installation.
2. it had no record of the resident requesting additional lighting at the front and rear of her property. Although the landlord was not obliged to provide these lights, it agreed to do so given the resident’s circumstances. It would contact the resident by 17 February 2023 to arrange an inspection.
3. it agreed with the resident at the time it offered her the property that it would carry out some repairs. However, it was unable to raise a works order at that time as the resident’s tenancy record had not yet been set up.
4. it would survey the property to formulate a schedule of works and determine whether these fell within the landlord’s responsibility to complete. It said it would carry out the survey at the same time as it inspected the outside lights.
5. it missed the appointment on 20 July 2022 “due to a misunderstanding”. It apologised for this and offered the resident £10 compensation.
6. it enclosed a copy of the tenancy documents requested by the resident. These were a signed gifting agreement and vulnerability form.
7. it was unable to reinstate the outbuilding or compensate the resident for the cost of it, which was an outcome she indicated she sought. It said it took the decision to remove the outbuilding before the resident accepted the property. It notified her of this and gave her the opportunity to decide if she still wished to accept the property. It said the outbuilding was therefore not part of the tenancy agreement, that it was “extremely dangerous” and that it was “the right decision” to remove it.
8. it told the resident that the rent would be £152 per week before she signed for the property. The amount was also set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord would therefore not reduce it to £133.
9. it apologised for the delay in resolving the resident’s concerns, particularly around repairs. It said it found its response “lacked sympathy”. It had spoken to relevant staff about communication. It said it had “taken the most appropriate action concerning members of staff” but that as this related to employment, it was unable to inform the resident of the specific actions taken.
10. it offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress she had suffered. This included the £10 offered for the missed appointment in July 2022.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She sent it a detailed letter attached to an email sent on 6 March 2023. She asked it to escalate her complaint.
Within the escalation request letter, the resident went through each point of the stage 1 response and rebutted a number of the landlord’s conclusions. She said:
1. the overall compensation of £100 offered did not reflect the distress she had suffered or the time it had taken her to put together her complaint “while still undergoing personal difficulties”.
2. the £10 compensation offered for the missed appointment did not reflect that she had lost out on a full day of pay.
3. the landlord had only responded to the outcomes she told it she sought rather than all the complaint issues she had raised.
4. it indicated the front and rear outside lights were a request for additional lighting in the stage 1 response. However, they were already installed when she moved in to the property. Her complaint was that they were faulty.
5. the landlord indicated it had spoken to “several staff members” when investigating the complaint. However, it did not clarify who they were despite the resident specifically complaining about numerous named officers.
In relation to the actions that the landlord indicated in the stage 1 response it would undertake, the resident commented in her escalation request that it:
1. had installed a new doorbell but it was faulty.
2. had not contacted her to arrange an inspection of the outside lighting.
3. had still not completed the other outstanding repairs.
4. had not enclosed a copy of the tenancy documents with the stage 1 response as it indicated it would.
The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of this escalation request. The resident followed this up in a further email sent on 20 March 2023. The landlord subsequently acknowledged receipt of the escalation request on 14 April 2023. However, it did not issue a complaint response.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and told us that the landlord had not responded to her escalation request. We asked it on 2 August 2023 to issue a stage 2 response. It did so on 8 September 2023.
In its stage 2 response the landlord addressed the repair and maintenance issues raised by the resident in her complaint. It said that it had attended to some of them before the tenancy began, such as the gardening and the missing front gate. In relation to the outstanding repairs, it set out the jobs it would attend to and those that were the resident’s responsibility. It asked the resident to contact it so that it could arrange an inspection and agree an action plan for resolving the remaining repairs.
The landlord reiterated its position as set out in the stage 1 response in relation to the outbuilding, the level of rent, and the missed appointment. It resent copies of the tenancy documentation. It also said:
1. when it offered the resident the property, it explained to her that if she refused, it would be unlikely to offer her an alternative property. This was in line with its policy which sets out that a refusal of a reasonable offer is likely to result in it removing the resident from the management transfer list. There was limited stock of the property type the resident sought. It was sorry if this made the resident feel pressured.
2. it was not the local authority and so it had no responsibility for advising her of council tax band increases.
3. it removed the skip the day after the resident received her keys and it also cleared any overflow. The landlord was sorry for the delay. However, it should not have prevented the resident from moving in. The resident received her keys a week before her tenancy began.
4. it understood it had not yet fitted the smart doorbell. It was sorry if this was the case and asked the resident to let it know when would suit for it to carry out the work.
5. there was a delay in processing her tenancy documents because she had not provided it with identification for her daughter at the start of the tenancy. The information remained outstanding and it asked her to provide it urgently.
6. foxes were an “urban natural issue” and were not something the landlord could deal with.
7. it apologised “unreservedly” for the missed appointments and delays in getting some of the repair issues resolved.
8. it had investigated the resident’s concerns that an officer showed “unprofessionalism and personal malice” but found no evidence of this. It was sorry if she felt this was indicative of the service she received and for any lack of empathy shown.
The landlord increased its compensation offer in the stage 2 response to £200. This was for delays in getting “a number of repair issues resolved” and included the £10 compensation for the missed appointment in July 2022.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she was “disheartened, disappointed, and dissatisfied” with the landlord’s response. She asked us to investigate all of the complaint issues she had raised.

Assessment and findings

Communications with the resident in relation to a managed move

In her original complaint letter, the resident said that:
1. the landlord made an offer of a property that was unsuitable as it was in a “deprived estate”. She said she told the landlord her concerns about her family’s safety if she accepted the property, but it did not respond or acknowledge her concerns.
2. a few months later it offered her another property. When she drove past it, she discovered the property description and photo the landlord gave her was incorrect.
3. following this, her daughter contacted the landlord and “pleaded for a suitable offer to be made” with “safety being the overall emphasis”. The landlord responded and said that it did not take personal circumstances into account when allocating properties. It told her it only took area of choice, size of property and how long someone has been on the management transfer list into account when offering properties.
4. she was then offered the property she now lives in. It was only a 4 minute drive from the property she was in at the time. She said this “defeated the purpose of [her] safety reasons for wanting to be outside the area”. The landlord told her if she did not accept the offer she would be removed from the management transfer list. She therefore felt a “pressure to accept”. She accepted it out of “desperation” due to her personal circumstances which at that time included an upcoming court appearance due to her being a victim of harassment and domestic abuse.
5. she was given a week to move. She had lived in her previous property for 20 years so had a considerable number of possessions to pack. She was aware of another resident who had recently been granted an extra week to move. She was unhappy that given her “sensitive circumstances” and the mental wellbeing of her and her daughter, that the landlord refused her request for more time to move.
6. the landlord had withheld copies of signed tenancy documentation from her.
The landlord did not address any of the above issues in its stage 1 response, other than to say it had enclosed the tenancy documents requested with its response. In its stage 2 response, the landlord partly addressed point d. only and it resent the tenancy documents. This is a complaint handling failure as it meant the landlord did not fully respond to all aspects of the complaint as required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This is assessed in more detail in the complaint handling section below.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that where it makes a reasonable offer of alternative accommodation, refusal of the offer may result in the resident being removed from the transfer list. It said the resident was offered a “like for like” property and that given the limited stock of 3 bedroom properties with a garden, it was a “rare opportunity”. It explained that it was therefore important under the circumstances to make it clear to the resident that had she refused the offer, it was “highly unlikely” she would be offered an alternative property.
While the explanation provided by the landlord aligns with its allocations and lettings policy, it is only applicable if the property being offered is ‘suitable’ accommodation. The landlord failed to address in its complaint response whether it took the suitability of the location of the property into account when offering the resident the property. The reason the landlord put the resident on the management transfer list was due to the location of her current property putting her in danger. The landlord was in receipt of a MARAC letter from April 2020 which stated the resident was “not safe in her current property” and that she needed to be “moved out of the borough.”
The resident outlined in her complaint correspondence that she had raised safety concerns with the landlord prior to the final property being offered, but it did not address these. She said it told her it “did not take personal circumstances into consideration” when making offers.
The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses so we do not know if it accepts that this statement was made. We have not seen any written evidence of the statement so are unable to comment on the context in which it was made. However, the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy make clear that personal circumstances are the driver behind the management transfer list. It is personal circumstances that determine whether a resident is eligible to be added to the list. The policy states that the “safety of the household is the priority and suitability of offers of alternative accommodation will reflect this”. The landlord failed to indicate in its complaint responses whether it took the safety of the resident into account when offering her management transfer properties. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not address in either complaint response the resident’s complaint that it refused to allow her extra time to move. We do not know the landlord’s rationale for refusing her request. There could have been a reasonable explanation, for example, it could have needed vacant possession of the resident’s former property by a certain date for an incoming tenant. However, as it did not address this in its complaint responses, we are unable to assess if its refusal was reasonable. This was a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord enclosed a copy of the gifting agreement and vulnerability form the resident signed at the start of her tenancy with both complaint responses. It failed however to address her complaint that it had previously withheld these documents from her. This was a further complaint handling failure. However, we are able to assess this aspect of the resident’s complaint as she has provided us with emails to and from the landlord about this issue in June 2022.
On 29 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to send her copies of the signed gifting agreement and vulnerability form. She said she had asked it for them “numerous times which [the landlord] ignored”. She suggested they were being withheld “on purpose”.
At that time the landlord was awaiting the resident sending it proof of her daughter’s identity in order that it could set up her tenancy account. In response to the resident’s email of 29 June 2022, it said it would send her copies of the tenancy documentation once it received the documents from the resident relating to her daughter. This was highly inappropriate.
While the landlord was correct to explain to the resident the documentation relating to her daughter was a requirement, this was unrelated to the resident’s request for copies of signed documents. The resident responded to the landlord that to use her request “as a bargaining tool to gather information that you require is not only unacceptable but unprofessional at this stage”. The Ombudsman agrees that it was unreasonable.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its communications with the resident in relation to a managed move. It failed to explain to her whether it had taken her safety concerns into account when offering her properties. It inappropriately refused to provide her with copies of signed tenancy documents. It missed the opportunity to address and acknowledge this in its complaint responses.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
We are unable to direct that the landlord moves the resident or that it puts her back on the management transfer list. It is for the landlord to determine if that is appropriate in line with its policies and depending on the resident’s current circumstances. Instead, we order the landlord to contact the resident and ask her if she still wishes to move out of the area. If she does, it should provide her with advice on her options for moving.

Communications with the resident in relation to the level of rent and council tax

The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the level of rent set by a landlord, or rent increases, are reasonable or not. If a resident thinks their rent is too high, they can apply to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and ask it to review the amount. We can, however, consider how a landlord has responded to a resident’s enquiry about rent.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 21 June 2022 about the rental amount for the property. This was 6 days before she signed the tenancy agreement. She explained that was unhappy as the landlord originally told her that the rent would be £133 per week. It had subsequently told her it would be £152 per week. The landlord asked her who had told her it would be the lower amount. She indicated it was a customer service advisor.
Following this conversation, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns. It listened to a recording of a phone call between the resident and a customer service advisor. In that call the advisor said they were unable to say what the rent for the new property would be. The landlord also checked with the officer who was at the resident’s viewing of the property. She said that she did not tell the resident what the rent would be during the viewing.
The landlord was unable to find evidence of any other calls or emails between its staff and the resident in which rent was discussed. It advised her of its findings in a follow up email on the same day, 21 June 2022. It said that although it could find no evidence, if an officer had mistakenly told her the rent would be £133 it was sorry. It told her that if she was able to provide any further information about who she spoke to, she should let it know so it could raise it with their manager. This was a reasonable response and proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns.
By the time the resident signed the tenancy agreement on 27 June 2022, the landlord had told her in no uncertain terms the rent was £152 per week. This amount was also stated on the tenancy agreement itself. The landlord’s complaint response, that it would not change the rental amount as it was a term of the tenancy agreement, was therefore reasonable.
Another issue raised by the resident in her complaint was that the landlord did not advise her before she accepted the property that it was subject to a higher council tax band than her previous property. She explained she was paying an extra £200 a month as a result and that she was experiencing “further hardship”. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was not responsible for reporting on council tax bands as it was not the local authority.
The landlord was correct that responsibility for setting the tax bands sits with the local authority. It is under no obligation to investigate tax bands and advise residents of these. Understandably, it may be hesitant to do so given the bands regularly change. It is therefore reasonable for residents to make their own enquiries with the local authority. On that basis, we are satisfied there was no failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the tax band. However, it was an unsympathetic response that overlooked her concerns about financial hardship. We have considered this further under complaint handling.
We understand from a recent conversation with the resident that she is still suffering from financial hardship. She may wish to review a dedicated section of the landlord’s website entitled ‘Money Matters’. Within this it provides advice and signposting support for managing finances, bills and reducing energy costs. It also includes details of the landlord’s ‘Helping Hand Fund’ which is available to residents who are on very low incomes or are experiencing exceptional financial hardship.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its communications with the resident in relation to rent and council tax. It reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns when she first raised them about being provided with incorrect rental advice. It ensured she was aware of the correct rental amount before she signed the tenancy agreement. It was under no obligation to advise her that the tax band for the property was higher than her previous property.

Decision to remove an outbuilding

There was an outbuilding at the property when the resident viewed it. She hoped to turn it into a home gym which she said would benefit her daughter’s mental health. However, the landlord decided to remove it before the resident signed the tenancy agreement. This was because a senior maintenance officer had assessed it and determined:
1. its size, location and proposed usage required building consent.
2. the method of construction, materials and “general workmanship” were not to a suitable standard.
3. it was causing damage to brick boundary walls bordering public walkways.
4. it presented a risk of injury to people.
The senior maintenance officer spoke to the resident and explained the decision to remove the outbuilding. She then emailed the landlord asking it to rethink the decision. She explained she had been in contact with building control who had given her advice on how to resolve the issue with the boundary walls. She said that depending on measurements it may not need building consent. She asked the landlord to allow her time to investigate this further.
The landlord responded in an email on 16 June 2022 and told her that its decision was final. It said that building control had “no power to dictate whether we keep a building or not”.
It was reasonable that the landlord relied upon the advice of a professional officer and took the decision to remove the outbuilding. It is required by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to regularly review the condition of dwellings and consider if they are safe. The HHSRS applies to any dwellings under the landlord’s control, including outbuildings. The decision to remove the outbuilding, because it posed a risk, was reasonable.
The landlord told the resident in emails on 16 and 17 June 2022 that if she no longer wished to accept the property given the outbuilding decision, she did not have to. It explained to her that as she had not yet signed for the property, she could still change her mind. This was reasonable. We recognise that the resident felt she could not refuse the property as the landlord had told her it was likely going to be the final offer it would make. That however is a reflection on its communications in relation to the management transfer, as assessed above, rather than its communications in relation to the outbuilding which were clear and reasonable.
There followed some discussion back and forth between the resident and the landlord about whether it had prior knowledge of the former tenant having installed the outbuilding. This was not however relevant to the decision to remove the outbuilding which was reasonably made on health and safety grounds. The landlord is entitled at any time during a tenancy to take action in relation to unsafe outbuildings. The tenancy handbook recognises this and states, “any unsafe sheds or greenhouses will be removed”. It would be reasonable to read this as applying to other types of outbuilding given the landlord’s obligations under the HHSRS. The landlord stated the resident requested for the base of the outbuilding to be left however the resident disputes this. An assessment has not been made on this issue as there is no evidence to confirm either way.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to remove an outbuilding. We sympathise with the resident and understand why she was extremely disappointed with the decision. However, it was a decision the landlord reasonably took based upon advice from a professional officer and in line with its health and safety obligations.

Handling of repairs in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states it “will ensure there is a good line of communication” with tenants regarding repairs. It requires it to “effectively manage expectations for the completion of a repair and ensure tenants are kept up to date on the progress”. The policy states it will aim to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, standard repairs within 21 days, and major works within 90 days.
The landlord’s allocations policy states, “We reserve the right to complete non-urgent repairs with the new tenant in situ and will agree a plan for the completion of repairs with the new tenant when they take on their tenancy”.
The resident emailed the landlord about the external void repairs and doorbell on 27 June 2022. She said in the email that the landlord had told her it would attend to everything she had listed. By the time the resident’s tenancy officially commenced on 4 July 2022, the evidence shows that the landlord had removed the skip, fitted a front gate, and cut the grass. It had not addressed the other issues raised in the email such as broken fencing, missing trellis, uneven ground, broken ceramics on the floor and no doorbell. There is no evidence it indicated to the resident at that time, as it later did in its complaint responses, that it believed some of these outstanding repairs were her responsibility such as the flooring. It therefore failed at the start of the tenancy to effectively manage her expectations as required by its repairs policy.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 July 2022 to advise a surveyor would attend the property on 20 July 2022 to inspect reported faults to a bathroom fan and light, a leak in a downstairs radiator, and the recently installed front gate. The resident confirmed she would be available. She also advised within the same email that the allocations officer “had already taken pictures of defects on the day of signing the tenancy to be passed on”.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it repaired the leaking radiator on 19 July 2022. It has not provided repair records that confirm this. It is unclear who attended this appointment. The landlord has however confirmed that the surveyor scheduled to inspect the property on 20 July 2022 failed to attend the appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord in the afternoon of 20 July 2022 to ask why the surveyor had not attended. It advised her the next day that it had taken her email to mean that she did not need the surveyor to attend. This was on the basis that another officer had already taken photos of the repairs. This was unreasonable as the resident clearly stated in her response email that the appointment time suited her. The landlord later apologised in its complaint responses for this “misunderstanding”.
The surveyor told the resident in an email on 21 July 2023 that she would liaise with the allocations officer regarding the repairs. There is no evidence that she then did this or that the landlord made any further contact with the resident in relation to the void repairs prior to January 2023 when she submitted her complaint. This was unreasonable and meant it failed to complete repairs that were its responsibility in accordance with the timeframes provided by its repairs policy.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the void repairs were not raised following the missed appointment on 20 July 2022 because the resident’s tenancy record had not yet been set up. The delay in setting up the record appears to have been due to the landlord awaiting information from the resident about her daughter.
Regardless of outstanding documentation, the tenancy commenced and existed on 4 July 2022. It was unreasonable that a tenancy record did not exist on the landlord’s system by that date and that this prevented repairs being raised. It meant that the landlord failed to put a plan of action in place for the completion of the void repairs as required by its allocations policy. The landlord did not acknowledge this was unreasonable in either complaint response.
In her complaint letter, the resident listed at least 26 repair issues, most of which she said she raised as void repairs when her tenancy began. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address all of these individually. It only singled out the doorbell, which we have assessed separately below, and outside lighting.
It referred in the stage 1 response to the outside lighting being “additional lighting to the front and rear” of the property. This was incorrect. The resident had explained in her complaint letter that it was existing outside lights, rather than new lights, that were faulty. The resident highlighted this misunderstanding in her escalation request, but the landlord did not acknowledge it in its stage 2 response.
The resident was particularly concerned for security reasons about the outside lighting not working. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will “treat security related repairs that are related to a case of domestic abuse as emergency repairs”. The landlord knew of the resident’s status as a high risk victim of domestic abuse. It failed in its complaint responses to recognise that the repairs to the outside lights should have been treated as an emergency repair and prioritised given the resident’s circumstances.
In relation to all the other repairs raised in the resident’s complaint letter, the landlord addressed them in the stage 1 response collectively as the “outstanding repairs”. It suggested that it would attend the property, prepare a schedule of works, and determine who was responsible for carrying out the repairs.
This was a reasonable proposal. The Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. This is particularly the case where the complaint involves repair issues that can take time to resolve. Our FAQs on the Code state that in such instances, the complaint response should provide an action plan for any actions or remedies to resolve the issues. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until it has completed them.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord suggested in its stage 1 response that it would survey the property and prepare a schedule of works. However, by the time it issued its stage 2 response, 7 months later in September 2023, no such survey had taken place. It had carried out some individual jobs, as detailed in its stage 2 response, but had not carried out a full survey of the property and agreed a complete schedule of works with the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord provided no explanation in its stage 2 response as to why 7 months had passed and it had not devised a schedule of works. It did however address the individual repair issues in more detail at stage 2 compared to the stage 1 response. It said:
1. The following works had already been attended to:
  1. the grass was cut and bushes left tidy at the start of the tenancy. It attached photos as evidence and said they were now the resident’s responsibility.
  2. a paving slab in the garden was lifted by an officer on the day of viewing.
  3. the front gate was fitted on 1 July 2022.
  4. the resident reported the radiator leak on 5 July 2022. It repaired it on 19 July 2022 following new parts being ordered and fitted to stop the leak.
  5. a bathroom leak, blocked toilet, leaking kitchen sink, and faulty lights in the living room and bedroom were repaired in May 2023. It said it was in the process of repainting the living room ceiling as it was damaged by the leak.
2. It would not replace the fencing trellis as it had been attached to the outbuilding which was removed. It was fitted by the previous tenant and it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace it. Building regulations would not permit it to be attached to the wall as the wall was already 6 foot high.
3. Extractor fans were not fitted as standard so it would not install one in the kitchen unless there was a specific requirement for the installation.
4. The following repairs were the resident’s responsibility:
  1. the ceramic floor as this was fitted by the previous tenant and the landlord intended to replace it with non-slip vinyl. The resident asked for it to be retained and signed a gifting form confirming she would be responsible for repairing and maintaining it.
  2. the faulty garden door lock as this was tested by the resident and the attending officer during the viewing and was working. Once a property is let, locks become the resident’s responsibility.
  3. the faulty showerhead and shower rail. It said that these “have only now been brought to our attention as faulty, which is over 12 months since your tenancy began, and so are your responsibility to repair or replace”.
5. It would inspect and carry out repairs if required to:
  1. remove the base left by the outbuilding and make good the ground. It said it understood the resident had originally asked for the base to be left so she could rebuild an outbuilding.
  2. fix broken fencing.
  3. the front gate as the resident was unhappy with how it had been fitted.
  4. skirting boards. It had no record of the resident having reported this previously.
  5. a hole under an electrical socket. It had no record of the resident having reported this previously.
  6. the blocked toilet. It had attended to this in May 2023 but the resident reported it was continuing to block.
  7. a broken light in the bathroom. It had no record of the resident having reported this previously.
  8. the fan in the bathroom.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that garden maintenance, such as the pruning of bushes and cutting of grass, is the resident’s responsibility. Similarly, it is the resident’s responsibility to repair and replace door locks, flooring, and shower accessories such as rails and hoses. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to distinguish between what repairs it was and was not responsible for. However, it was unreasonable that it did not do so much sooner than in its stage 2 response. Many of the repairs were raised by the resident as void repairs when the tenancy began. As we have established, the landlord failed to devise an action plan at that time which would have made clear what work it would carry out and when. This meant it did not adhere to its allocations policy and it missed an opportunity to “effectively manage expectations” as required by its repairs policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to highlight repairs that the resident had not reported at the start of the tenancy in July 2022. This included the repairs to the skirting boards, a hole under an electrical socket, and a bedroom light. However, it overlooked that she had raised these issues in her complaint letter in January 2023. The landlord should have attended to them within 21 days in line with its repairs policy. It still had not done so by the time the stage 2 response was issued 8 months later. Rather than acknowledge this, it suggested in the stage 2 response that the resident had not previously reported the issues. This was unreasonable.
The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in the stage 2 response for the inconvenience caused by its delays in “getting a number of repair issues resolved”. It said these issues included the doorbell, front lights and painting of the living room ceiling. However, as set out above, there were numerous other failings by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. As the landlord did not recognise these in its complaint responses, it did not factor them into its compensation calculation. We therefore find that the compensation of £200 offered was not enough to provide reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the property. This is because the landlord:
1. did not agree an action plan with the resident at the start of the tenancy that clearly documented the void repairs it had agreed to carry out. This was contrary to its repairs and allocations policies.
2. unreasonably delayed in creating a tenancy account which led to the void repairs not being raised on its system.
3. failed to communicate effectively between teams to ensure that all void repairs were logged and actioned.
4. failed to complete the void repairs for which it was responsible, along with other repairs raised within the January 2023 complaint letter, within the timescales prescribed by its repairs policy.
5. failed to recognise that the repairs to the outside lights should have been treated as an emergency repair and prioritised given the resident’s security concerns.
6. failed to follow through on the commitment made in the stage 1 complaint response to inspect the property and devise a schedule of works. It did not acknowledge this in the stage 2 response.
7. calculated the £200 compensation offered in the stage 2 response based on its delays in completing some of the repairs only. This did not reflect the totality of its failings as set out in points a. to f. above.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration. If the landlord has paid the resident the £200 offered in its stage 2 response, this amount may be deducted from the £600 ordered.
The landlord asked the resident in its stage 2 response to contact it so that an inspection could be arranged and an action plan agreed for resolving the remaining repairs. The inspection took place in November 2023. The landlord then wrote to the resident in December 2023 to confirm what works it would carry out. The resident was unhappy with the letter as she said it did not align with everything the landlord said it would do during the November 2023 inspection.
Since then, the landlord has carried out some works in the property. It told the Ombudsman in April 2024 that all repairs for which it was responsible had been completed, with the exception of removal of a tree and a fencing repair. It contacted the resident in October 2024 to discuss any remaining concerns she had. It told us in December 2024 that it would continue to maintain contact with her to ensure it resolved all her concerns.
The resident told us in January 2025 that she was not satisfied the landlord had resolved all the repair issues raised in her complaint. She said that in addition to the tree and fencing repair, it had not addressed the following:
1. the toilet in the main bathroom was continuing to block, as was the sink.
2. the front gate still required repair.
3. the smart doorbell the landlord installed during the complaints process was faulty.
4. it had not yet fitted an additional outside sensor light to the side of the property. It agreed in its December 2023 letter it would install this for her safety given her circumstances as a high risk domestic abuse victim. In line with its repairs policy, as this is security related, the landlord should treat the installation of this light as an emergency repair.
5. other repair issues including that the flooring required replacement in the main bathroom and downstairs toilet, there was inadequate heating in the downstairs toilet, and the living room radiator was faulty. We acknowledge that these issues were not raised in her original complaint letter.
Given the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full repairs survey of the property. It should clearly document its findings and produce an action plan with timeframes for fully resolving all repairs for which it is responsible. It should share its findings and the action plan with the resident and the Ombudsman. If the resident is unhappy with the findings, the action plan, or the landlord’s implementation of the plan, she may submit a new complaint.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the lettable standard of the property

The landlord is required by its allocations policy to let properties in accordance with its ‘lettable standard’. The policy also states, “We reserve the right to complete non-urgent repairs with the new tenant in situ and will agree a plan for the completion of repairs with the new tenant when they take on their tenancy.”
It is not disputed by the landlord that void repairs existed when the resident signed for the property on 27 June 2022 and received her keys. The non-urgent nature of the repairs meant this was not contrary to its allocations policy or the lettable standard provided it agreed a plan for completion of the repairs with the resident. As outlined in the previous section, it failed to do this.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the skip and “outstanding repairs” generally. However, it did not address the resident’s specific complaint that the property was not of a lettable standard at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord partially addressed the complaint in its stage 2 response. It said, “It is not unusual for some smaller works to be carried out to the property after the tenancy has commenced as long as the property meets our decent homes standard, which would have been the case in this instance.”
This was a limited response to the resident’s complaint about the lettable standard of the property. The landlord referred to the ‘decent homes standard’ which is a government initiative that sets minimum statutory standards social homes are required to meet. It did not refer to its own lettable standard. It did not acknowledge that it had failed to agree an action plan with the resident to complete the void repairs as required by its allocations policy.
The landlord failed to demonstrate through its complaint responses that it had fully considered whether, on 4 July 2022 when the tenancy began, the property achieved its lettable standard. It has provided no assurance to the Ombudsman either. For example, it has produced no records from the time the property was let demonstrating that all void checks were carried out or documenting what the outstanding void repairs were. Given this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the lettable standard of the property.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.

Response to the resident’s request for a smart doorbell

The landlord is required by its repairs policy to repair doorbells it has fitted. It is not obliged to provide a doorbell where there is not already one in place, or to repair or replace doorbells fitted by tenants.
The repairs policy recognises the need for extra consideration and support when delivering services to vulnerable tenants. This includes victims of domestic abuse. It states, “In order to safeguard a survivor of domestic abuse, we may undertake additional repairs or adaptations that may fall outside our normal repairs service standard. Such measures might include security lights, extra locks, and fireproof letter boxes. In some cases, we will work with partner agencies to deliver these. We will treat any security related repairs that are related to a case of domestic abuse as emergency repairs.”
The landlord wrote to the resident in May 2022 to confirm it would provide her with a smart doorbell free of charge. She had requested this as a security measure due to her ongoing safety concerns as a high risk victim of domestic abuse.
When viewing the new property in June 2022, the resident noted there was no doorbell, not even a standard fitting. She said she raised this with the landlord during the viewing. Its records indicate it was discussed again during a telephone call on 27 June 2022, the same day she signed for the property. It told her during the call that it would raise a works order for the smart doorbell to be fitted once her tenancy officially commenced on 4 July 2022.
The resident followed this up with the landlord. It confirmed to her in an email on 7 July 2022 that a smart doorbell would be ordered and fitted.
As outlined above in the assessment section on repairs, the landlord failed to raise works orders once the tenancy began due to a delay in creating a tenancy account. This meant it did not attend to the void repairs or fit the smart doorbell. This was a significant failing in relation to the doorbell given it had agreed to fit it for security reasons. In line with its repairs policy, as it was security related, it should have been prioritised as an emergency job.
In its stage 1 response issued on 8 February 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in fitting the doorbell. It said it had ordered one and that the resident would receive a telephone call by 10 February 2023 to discuss installation. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated it intended to treat the installation as urgent.
The landlord has not provided any works records relating to the installation of the smart doorbell. However, an internal note suggested it was due to be fitted on 16 February 2023. The resident confirmed in her escalation request on 6 March 2023 that it had been fitted but she said it was faulty.
In its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023 the landlord said it understood the smart doorbell had not been fitted. It apologised and offered to attend to the job urgently. While the landlord had misunderstood the situation, it was appropriate for it to agree to attend on an urgent basis. However, it is not clear from the records provided whether the landlord has made any attempts to resolve the fault reported by the resident. She advised us in January 2025 that it remains faulty.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a smart doorbell. It apologised for the delay in installing the doorbell in its stage 1 response and appropriately prioritised the job. However, although it then installed the doorbell a short time later, the resident reported it was faulty. The landlord has produced no records or other evidence to demonstrate that following her reports of a fault, it inspected and repaired the doorbell. Given the resident’s need for the doorbell as a security measure, this was unreasonable. It was also not in keeping with its repairs policy which requires security related repairs to be treated as an emergency.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
We also require the landlord to inspect the smart doorbell and arrange for any necessary repairs when carrying out the property survey we have ordered.

Response to the resident’s concerns about a pest infestation

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will usually be a resident’s responsibility to deal with any pests in their property. However, it recognises that there are exceptions to this, including where there is “a defect in the property allowing entry to the pest”.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that her garden was unsafe to occupy due to foxes entering it. At stage 2 it simply said that foxes were an “urban natural issue” and were not something the landlord could deal with.
This was an unreasonable response given the resident had indicated the foxes were entering the garden through gaps in the fence. Included with her complaint letter were photos of foxes in the garden during daylight hours, with one photo showing at least 3 foxes present. She highlighted the photos to show where the relevant fence gaps were.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to boundary fences. In line with its policy, it should therefore have considered whether a repair issue for which it was responsible was contributing to the problem. It was inappropriate that it did not do so.
The repairs policy also states that where a resident reports a pest problem, the landlord “will recommend appropriate action to them”. Even if the landlord had concluded there was no repair issue contributing to the problem, it should reasonably have offered the resident advice or signposted her to where she could get information about preventative measures. Instead, it offered no advice in its stage 2 response beyond foxes being an “urban natural issue”. This was unsympathetic and dismissive of the resident’s concern that her garden was unsafe to occupy.
Given the landlord did not consider its repair obligations and offered no advice to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in its response to her concerns.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure. We make no further orders in relation to the gaps in the fencing as we understand these have now been repaired by the landlord.
We are aware that during 2023 the resident reported that squirrels were nesting in the loft. We understand the landlord carried out pest control treatment in the loft in early 2024. However, the resident has told us she is not satisfied the treatment has been fully effective. She advised us that there are also now mice in the property.
We are unable to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of squirrels and mice as these were not raised within the January 2023 complaint, which is the focus of our investigation. However, given our findings in relation to how it handled the reports of foxes, we recommend that the landlord inspects the property for pests and rodents. If they are gaining entry due to a repair responsibility of the landlord, it should take prompt action to address this. If the landlord bears no repair responsibility, it should provide the resident with advice on how to tackle the problem.

Response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments

The resident complained that the landlord did not notify her it was no longer attending the survey appointment on 20 July 2022. She said she wasted time waiting at home all day for the surveyor to arrive and lost out unnecessarily on work pay as a result. She expressed her disappointment that the landlord did not contact her to explain why it missed the appointment until the next day and that it did not apologise when it did so.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it advised the resident on 21 July 2022 that it did not attend the appointment due to “a misunderstanding”. It apologised for this and offered the resident £10 compensation. It said this was awarded in line with its “compensation policy”. However, the landlord has advised us it does not have a compensation policy. A fixed amount of £10 for missed appointments does not appear to be written into its repairs or complaints policies. We are therefore unclear how it arrived at this figure.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that when attempting to put things right, it will consider the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In this guidance, we suggest a reasonable level of compensation for service failure involving a missed appointment is £50 to £100 depending on the circumstances. Given this, we find that the landlord should reasonably have offered the resident £50 compensation for the missed appointment.
In her escalation request the resident said the landlord’s stage 1 response simply stated back to her what she already knew about the missed appointment. Despite this, the landlord provided no further comments on the missed appointment in the stage 2 response other than to reiterate its apology. It did not clarify whether it found in its complaint investigation if the previous explanation of a “misunderstanding” was acceptable. It did not recognise that once the “misunderstanding” was identified, it then failed to rearrange the appointment which had a direct impact on void repairs not being progressed. It reoffered the resident £10 compensation which, as we have found, should reasonably have been £50 in line with our remedies guidance.
When the Ombudsman asked the landlord in August 2023 to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2, it said the resident had made 6 individual complaints that year. It confirmed it would address all the issues raised within those individual complaints within the stage 2 response.
Accordingly, in its stage 2 response issued on 8 September 2023, the landlord referred to 4 other complaint responses in which it offered the resident compensation for missed appointments. It outlined that it offered her:
1. £30 for a missed heating appointment in January 2023
2. £30 for a missed appointment to unblock the bathroom in May 2023.
3. £10 for a missed appointment to repair outside lights in May 2023.
4. £10 for a missed appointment to repair outside lights in June 2023.
As the landlord referred to these compensation offers within its stage 2 response, we have reviewed the amounts offered. We note that the amounts offered varied. We recognise this may be due to the detriment caused by the missed appointment, but are unable to say with certainty given the absence of a compensation policy. As explained above, and in line with our remedies guidance, we find the landlord should reasonably have offered the resident £50 for each missed appointment.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a missed appointment. It apologised in both complaint responses for a “misunderstanding” leading it to miss the appointment. However, it did not recognise there was a secondary failure when it did not rearrange the appointment. It did not offer the resident a sufficient level of compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the missed appointment, or for 4 further missed appointments it referred to within its stage 2 response.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for each missed appointment, bringing the total to £250. If it has already paid the £80 compensation for the missed appointments between January and June 2023, this may be deducted from the £250 ordered.

Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had breached its duty of care and also that it had breached her confidentiality.
We have considered throughout this report whether the landlord’s dealings with the resident have been fair, reasonable and in line with its policies. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether there has been a ‘breach of duty of care’. This would be more appropriately addressed through the landlord’s liability insurance or as a civil claim, for example, for personal injury. If the resident wishes to explore this further, she should seek independent legal advice.
Similarly, the landlord is unable to determine whether the landlord has breached confidentiality. This would be a data protection complaint which falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). If the resident wishes to explore this further, she should contact the landlord’s data protection team or she can contact the ICO directly for advice.
Where complaints about staff conduct are raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there was misconduct. Terms and conditions of employment are set out in a contractual agreement between a landlord and its staff. It is for the landlord to decide whether any personnel action is warranted. As such, we are unable to direct that specific action is taken against a member of staff. Our role is to assess whether the landlord undertook a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns and acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable overall.
The resident complained about 6 named officers in her complaint. The complaints were that:
1. the allocations officer (officer 1) arranged to have the outbuilding destroyed out of “malicious intent”. The resident also outlined that the officer did not consider her circumstances when offering her properties and refusing to extend the one week deadline within which she was required to move.
2. a manager of officer 1 (officer 2) did not fairly consider her appeal to have her moving period extended by a further week.
3. the resident received no response to an email sent to the customer services general email address, marked for the attention of the ‘Head of Customer Services’. This was to bring attention to officer 2 not responding to an email.
4. a member of the property team (officer 3) delayed in responding to her in relation to the outbuilding decision.
5. she asked to speak to the manager of officer 3, but the manager (officer 4) failed to respond.
6. a neighbourhood officer (officer 5) was “unprofessional” and “threatening” during a phone call regarding the doorbell.
7. the surveyor (officer 6) who did not attend the appointment in July 2022, only contacted her the day after the appointment to explain why she had not attended. She did not apologise.
In its complaint responses the landlord said:
1. it had reviewed correspondence and spoken with the staff complained about during its complaint investigation.
2. it found that some of the responses “lacked empathy”.
3. it had “taken the most appropriate action concerning members of staff”. It was unable to provide specific details “as this relates to employment”.
4. it was unable to find any evidence of “unprofessionalism or personal malice” in relation to officer 1. It was sorry the resident felt “this was indicative of the service [she] received”. It apologised for any lack of empathy shown and assured her it was not intended.
5. officer 6 was sorry for the misunderstanding regarding the missed appointment.
6. its staff had recently taken part in a training programme aimed at improving customer service. It continued to embed this learning through workshops, online training and team sessions.
We are satisfied that this was a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The landlord investigated the concerns, identified shortcomings in its communications, and apologised to the resident for this. It was appropriate that for employment and data protection reasons, it did not provide specific information about any further action taken against individual officers. Instead, it outlined more general action it had taken in terms of staff training aimed at improving customer service.
Given this, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 8 February 2023. It therefore issued the response within the 10 working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint in a letter sent to the landlord by email on 6 March 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of the letter or the escalation request. In a further email sent on 20 March 2023, the resident told the landlord she had not yet received an acknowledgement of her escalation request. The landlord did not respond to this until 14 April 2023 when it finally acknowledged the request.
This delay was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy which required escalation requests to be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not apologise to the resident for this.
The landlord said in its acknowledgement that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, it instead opened a new stage 1 complaint on its system. It then shut the new complaint down on the basis that a resolution was reached on 3 May 2023. However, it did not provide either a new stage 1 response or a stage 2 response to resident’s escalation request of 6 March 2023. The escalation request went completely unanswered. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, both of which required the landlord to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman about the landlord’s lack of response. On 2 August 2023 we intervened and asked it to provide a stage 2 response no later than 4 September 2023. It said it would do so but then failed to issue the response by the deadline. We contacted it on 6 September 2023 and gave it a new deadline of 13 September 2023. We advised it that if the response was not issued by that date, we would issue it with a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The landlord subsequently issued the stage 2 response to the resident on 8 September 2023.
While we were happy to assist the resident, it was unreasonable the landlord only provided the response following our intervention. It did not acknowledge its failure to initially respond, or the extra time and effort spent by the resident in seeking our assistance, in its stage 2 response.
The only explanation provided by the landlord for its initial failure to issue a stage 2 response was in correspondence to the Ombudsman. It suggested that as the resident had made 6 individual complaints that year, this “contributed to the confusion and delay in escalating her complaint”. We are aware that 4 of these complaints related to missed appointments. We have not seen the correspondence for these 4 complaints, but we are aware of them as they were referred to by the landlord in the stage 2 response to the wider complaint issued on 8 September 2023.
As we have not seen the complaint correspondence, we cannot comment on why the landlord treated the 4 reports of missed appointments as formal complaints rather than a service request. As outlined in the Code, a service request is a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. For example, in the case of a missed appointment, it may be that a landlord simply needs to rearrange the appointment rather than raise a formal complaint. This would free up resource for the landlord and could potentially avoid situations where numerous complaint codes cause confusion and lead to escalation requests being missed. Further guidance on distinguishing between service requests and complaints, and informing residents of such decisions, is included in the Ombudsman’s FAQs on the Code.
We have recently recommended that the landlord should consider introducing a compensation policy (our case reference 202319561). If it does decide to introduce such a policy, we recommend that it considers incorporating fixed compensation amounts for missed appointments into it. It should explain within the policy whether there are circumstances in which this may be offered to residents without the need for a formal complaint being raised.
In addition to the procedural failure to issue a timely stage 2 complaint response, we noted some shortcomings in the substance of the landlord’s stage 1 response. In particular, it failed to fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. That it did not meant it did not comply with its complaints policy or the Code.
We recognise that the resident’s complaint was substantial. It contained details of approximately 26 individual repair issues, concerns about the conduct of 6 staff members, and outlined approximately 14 other complaint issues. The landlord reasonably spoke to the resident before issuing its stage 1 response to try and narrow down the outcomes she sought. However, it then structured its complaint response around the outcomes rather than the original complaint letter. This meant it did not address all the complaint issues raised.
For example, the landlord did not address the following in the stage 1 response:
1. the various complaints about its communications with the resident in relation to the management transfer.
2. the resident’s concerns about the lettable standard of the property.
3. the resident’s concerns about foxes.
The landlord provided a general response only to the “outstanding repairs” rather than addressing each issue individually. It also incorrectly identified the external lights issue as being a request for new lights to be installed, rather than a report of faulty existing lights.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided a more detailed response to the various repair issues. However:
1. its response to the resident’s complaints about the management transfer and the lettable standard remained limited.
2. although it adopted a reasonable position in relation to the complaints about rent and council banding, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s comments about struggling financially. It showed no sympathy in its response and did not signpost her to any support services.
3. it offered a limited response to the resident’s concerns about foxes, again missing the opportunity to signpost her to advice services.
4. it did not acknowledge it had failed to fully address the resident’s complaint at stage 1, despite the resident complaining about this in her escalation request.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint. This led to her having to go to the time and trouble of involving the Ombudsman. There was a further minor delay in issuing the response even after we were involved. The landlord also failed to address all aspects of the complaint at both stages. It missed opportunities to signpost the resident to support services and demonstrated limited sympathy to the resident’s reports of financial struggles. We have therefore concluded that the landlord failed to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration. Similar complaint handling issues have been identified in a number of complaints the Ombudsman has investigated recently about the landlord. We have already made a series of orders for the landlord to review its complaint handling and to provide training to relevant staff. For that reason, no learning orders have been made on this case, but we will be monitoring the landlord’s actions in relation to the existing orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s communications with the resident in relation to a managed move.
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s communications with the resident in relation to the level of rent and council tax.
3. no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove an outbuilding.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lettable standard of the property.
6. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a smart doorbell.
7. service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a pest infestation.
8. service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments.
9. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
10. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior officer of Director level.
2. pay the resident £2,150 compensation comprised as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its communications with her in relation to a managed move.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs in the property.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to her concerns about the lettable standard of the property.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for a smart doorbell.
  5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to her concerns about a pest infestation.
  6. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to her concerns about a missed appointment.
  7. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
  8. If the landlord has paid the resident the £200 offered in its stage 2 complaint response or the £80 offered for 4 missed appointments between January and June 2023, these amounts may be deducted from the £2,150 ordered.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. contact the resident and ask her if she still wishes to move out of the area. If she does, it should provide her with advice on her options for moving.
2. carry out a full repairs survey of the property. This should include an inspection of the smart doorbell. It should clearly document its survey findings and produce an action plan with timeframes for fully resolving all repairs for which it is responsible. It should share its findings and the action plan with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord inspects the property for pests and rodents. If they are gaining entry due to a repair responsibility of the landlord, it should take prompt action to address this. If the landlord bears no repair responsibility, it should provide the resident with advice on how to tackle the problem.
If the landlord decides to introduce a compensation policy, we recommend that it considers incorporating fixed compensation amounts for missed appointments into it. It should explain within the policy whether there are circumstances in which this may be offered to residents without the need for a formal complaint being raised.