Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Gravesend Churches Housing Association Limited (202224957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224957

Gravesend Churches Housing Association Limited

15 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the communal stairwell.
    2. Repairs to the water supply pipes.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. His tenancy began on 19 July 1993. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat in a low rise block. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. In September 2021 the resident reported to the landlord the presence of particles within his water supply. On 29 October 2021 the landlord took samples for testing. The landlord carried out a chlorination of the system to eliminate the microorganisms and the particles within the pipework. On the 23 November 2021 a specialist contractor informed the landlord that the treatment failed to resolve the matter.
  3. On 27 September 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports of the poor quality of the water at his property. He said it was unclean because of the degradation of the supply pipes within the building. He explained that the landlord tested the water but failed to resolve the problem.
  4. Between October 2022 and November 2022, the landlord attempted to retest the water at the resident’s property but the resident refused because it had already tested the water. He explained that he would only provide access for the landlord to replace the faulty pipe in his property.
  5. On 21 November 2022 the landlord agreed to apply anti-slip paint on the communal stairs. The resident informed the landlord on 13 January 2023, that although it had painted the communal stairs, it had not worked. He said the stairs remained dangerous and slippery when wet.
  6. On 13 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that due to a lack of contact from the resident, it had closed his stage 1 complaint. The resident said his complaint remained unresolved and requested to escalate his complaint on 30 January 2023. He said that the landlord had previously tested the water and reiterated his request to repair the faulty supply pipes. The landlord said that it would respond to his complaint at stage 1 of his complaint process.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 February 2023 and said:
    1. It acknowledged that it failed to take actions following its investigation into the water issue in 2021 and the resident had to raise a complaint about it. It outlined the actions it took to resolve the matter in 2022. It explained that because the resident refused to have the water retested and did not respond to further communications, it assumed that the issue was resolved and closed the complaint.
    2. Its specialist contractor acknowledged that faulty pipes may be the cause for the water problem. However, it also advised to test the water for lead and other metals because this was not previously done. The landlord asked the resident to provide his availability for the test. It also included a copy of the water testing report from 2021.
    3. It painted the bottom of the stairwells with anti-slip paint 3 months earlier but agreed to carry out an inspection to assess the problem.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident declined to meet up to improve their relationship but said the offer remained open.
  8. On 15 February 2023 the resident wrote a detailed response to the landlord about its stage 1 response to his complaint. He said his complaint about the water pipe and the slippery steps remained unresolved. He reiterated that he would be available for the contractor to replace the faulty flexible pipe in his property. He also reiterated his position in relation to his relationship with the landlord and said that it would only gain entry to his property via a court order.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2023 and said:
    1. It outlined the events up to that date and acknowledged that on 20 February 2023, the resident agreed to having the water tested. It confirmed that the test was booked for 2 March 2023 and it would act on any recommendations.
    2. It was investigating different options to resolve the matter of the slippery steps.
    3. It explained that the resident’s refusal to allow access to the landlord without a court order was not sustainable and offered to meet to discuss a way forward. It also offered to organise for an external mediator to help with repairing their relationship.
  10. On 2 March 2023 the landlord’s specialist contractor inspected the property and took water samples for testing. On 15 March 2023 the landlord shared the findings with the resident and the recommendations to replace the flexible hose pipe under the kitchen sink.
  11. On 20 March 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response to his complaint. He reiterated the landlord’s failings to adequately resolve the issue with the stairs. He outlined the sequence of events in relation to the issue of the water quality in his property. He said the landlord had ignored his requests to replace a faulty water pipe for approximately 18 months. He added that following the tests completed in March 2023, the specialist contractor confirmed that the issue was with the flexible hose pipe under the kitchen sink. He requested a copy of the report following the tests carried out in March 2023. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 3.
  12. The landlord’s records state that it painted the stairwell again with anti-slip paint on 5 April 2023.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint on 14 June 2023:
    1. It acknowledged that applying effective anti-slip paint to the stairwell took longer than it should have and confirmed this was completed.
    2. It recognised its failings in responding to the water testing report in November 2021 and how it contributed to the breakdown in relationship with the resident. It investigated and found no evidence that it destroyed or withheld a report in relation to the test completed in March 2023. It reassured the resident that it had shared with him all the documentation relating to the test.
    3. It offered to attend the property on 22 June 2023 to replace the flexible pipe. It said it would test the water before and after the repairs.
    4. It apologised for its failings and offered to pay £1761.72 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to him. It added that the compensation was “the final settlement for the inconvenience of all claims relating to the resident’s occupation of the property”.

Post complaints process

  1. Between March 2023 and June 2023, there were lots of communication between the resident and the landlord. After several attempts, they agreed a date and the landlord replaced the flexible hose pipe on 12 July 2023.
  2. The resident said the landlord installed a flexible hose pipe which was not compliant with the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WARS). The landlord replaced the flexible hose pipe with one approved by WARS on 28 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has reported an issue with the quality of the water in his property since 2021. We acknowledge that he expressed concerns about the potential impact on his health. We understand that he had several urinary tract infections since 2017/2018 and believes this is because of the quality of the water in his property. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

Repairs to the communal stairwell

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to repair the common parts of the property and take reasonable care to keep the stairways in repair and fit for use. Additionally, the landlord’s maintenance policy states that it is responsible for communal areas such as the stairwells. Its policy states that that it would complete repairs within 42 days of issuing a work order.
  2. On 13 January 2023 the resident reported that although the landlord painted the communal stairwell with anti-slip paint in November 2021, it did not work. He explained that the stairs were slippery and dangerous when wet. He added that himself and other residents had fallen because of this. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s account, this service has not seen evidence that other residents reported falling because the stairs were wet.
  3. Nevertheless, in such cases, this Service would expect landlords to promptly acknowledge and act on a resident’s report. We would expect a landlord to speak to the resident to understand the severity of the problem, inspect the property and take suitable actions to resolve the matter. In this case, the landlord only acknowledged the resident’s request when it issued its response to his formal complaint about it. This was unreasonable from the landlord, residents should not have to raise a formal complaint for the landlord to respond to their repair requests.
  4. Additionally, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the repair to the stairwell was 31 days after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord’s maintenance policy does not provide a timeframe to acknowledge a repair request. However, 31 days is not a reasonable timeframe, especially when the issue may present a risk to residents. This was unreasonable from the landlord and contributed to the resident feeling unheard. The landlord’s failure to act quickly caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a complaint.
  5. The evidence does not show when the landlord inspected the stairwell. However, the landlord noted that in February 2023, it discussed solutions with the resident to make the paint more effective. It also put signage to warn residents that the stairs may be dangerous. On 27 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the residents of the block and informed them that it would paint the stairs the following week. Whilst those were positive steps for the landlord to take, this was 42 days after it committed to inspecting the stairs in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. This was also approximately a month after it agreed a solution with the resident. This was a long time for the landlord to act. Its lack of urgency would have contributed to the resident feeling that it did not take the matter seriously.
  6. Additionally, the Ombudsman understands that there can be delays in completing repairs or seeking suitable contractors to complete certain works. However, in such cases, landlords should communicate with residents keeping them updated on the progress in resolving the problem. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it kept the resident updated or explain why it took over a month to implement the solutions it identified and agreed with him. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with what we would expect from landlords in such cases. Prompt actions and effective communication from landlords are key to nurture trust and good relationships with residents.
  7. After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the stairwell. We recognised that the landlord took steps to warn the residents about the potential risks presented by the stairs when wet. We also understand that it explored and agreed a suitable way forward with the resident and resolved the problem. Nevertheless, it failed to carry out the repairs within its published timeframe and to communicate effectively with the resident about the delays in resolving the matter. We recognise this caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue several times with the landlord. However, no evidence was seen that the landlord’s failings affected the overall outcome for the resident. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on him.

The repairs to the water supply pipes

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water, which includes water pipes. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. This covers the quality and adequacy of the supply of water within the landlord’s properties for drinking and domestic purposes. The HHSRS is concerned about threats to health from chemical and microbiological pollutants. Landlords should be aware of their legal obligations. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any issue with the pipes supplying the water in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
  2. The evidence shows that at the resident’s request, his water supplier investigated the presence of brown particles in his water in October 2021. It  concluded that the issue was “likely due to the internal degradation” of the property internal pipework. It summarised its findings in a letter to the resident , who shared it with the landlord and advised that the degraded pipes should be replaced. The landlord sought expert advice and tested the water within a week of the resident sharing his supplier’s findings. This was reasonable from the landlord, it demonstrated that it was keen to understand the nature of the problem. Its actions should have reassured the resident that it acted on his report in keeping with its obligations as a landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the resident believed that biofilm was present in his water. We recognise that the specialist contractor reported higher than normal level of competing organisms and black particles in the water but found no evidence of legionella, coliforms or e-coli in the water samples. However, these are technical matters and it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on those. Therefore, we will not make a decision on the outcome or the interpretation of the water tests. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in keeping with its policies and obligations, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. In this case, the evidence shows that following the tests it completed in October 2021, the specialist contractor recommended the chlorination of the property water system. The landlord said it completed the remedial work 19 days later. We recognise that after retesting the water, the contractor said this did not resolve the problem and this caused frustration to the resident. However, the landlord completed the recommended repairs in keeping with its published timeframe to carry out such repairs within 42 days, which was reasonable.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that following his water supplier’s findings, the resident believed that in October 2021, his landlord should have replaced the defective water supply pipe. We also acknowledge that it was later determined that the flexible hose pipe under his kitchen sink was defective. However, in October 2021, the landlord did not know this. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to investigate, test the water and try to establish the underlying cause of the problem. It was also reasonable for the landlord to trust and listen to the advice of its expert.
  6. However, in November 2021, the landlord’s specialist contractor recommended that it carry out further inspection of the building water supply system. We understand that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint that it had failed to act on its contractor’s recommendations and did not carry out further investigations into the property water system. Whilst it was right for the landlord to recognise its failings, not acting on its expert’s recommendations was unfair on the resident. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the problem sooner and left the resident without a resolution. It failed to meet its obligations and satisfy itself that the pipes supplying the water to the property did not amount to a hazard which required remedy.
  7. This service recognises that the landlord shared the outcome of the water tests it completed in 2021 with the resident. It appropriately reassured him that the tests for legionella and e-coli were negative. However, it did not demonstrate that it satisfied itself or reassured the resident whether the water was safe to drink. This service cannot determine if it was. Nonetheless, it is understandable that the presence of any debris within the water supply would have caused the resident some distress and concern around if his water was safe. It would have been appropriate and in keeping with its obligations for the landlord to take additional steps to satisfy itself that the water was safe to drink and free of hazards.
  8. Between November 2021 and May 2022, neither party showed that they communicated about the issue. This service recognises that in keeping with his tenancy agreement, the resident is expected to promptly report repairs to the landlord. However, in this case, the landlord knew about the problem and was aware that the issue with the water was likely caused by a degrading pipe. It did not show that during that period it satisfied itself that the issue was resolved or why it would assume that it was. Additionally, the landlord did not show that it acted on the resident’s report in May 2022 and that the issue with the water remained unresolved. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its maintenance policy and its obligations in such cases. It also contributed to the resident feeling unheard.
  9. The evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint in September 2022, the landlord took proportionate and reasonable steps to resolve the problem. Between October 2022 and March 2023, there were communications between the resident and the landlord. The landlord attempted to take a sample to test the resident’s water and explained its reasons for doing so. It also shared with the resident the nature of the tests it wanted to carry out. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord and demonstrated that it was committed to understanding the underlying issue and resolving the matter in keeping with its obligations as a landlord.
  10. The Ombudsman understands that in October 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he believed the test was unnecessary and would not resolve the issue of the faulty pipe. We acknowledged that the water was previously tested. However, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation for retesting the water. It explained that it wanted to test for metals, for which were not previously tested. Furthermore, the tests were recommended by its specialist contractor, and the landlord was entitled to follow its expert’s advice.
  11. Between October 2022 and February 2023, the resident repeatedly said that he did not want any staff of the landlord attending his property to test the water. However, his tenancy agreement states that he is to allow the landlord’s employees or contractors acting on his behalf access to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs at the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to allow its contractor to take water samples from his property for testing. We acknowledge that in February 2023, the resident agreed to allow access for the tests. Unfortunately, his reluctance to allow access sooner, significantly delayed the landlord testing the water, inspecting the property and its ability to resolve the matter sooner.
  12. The landlord recognised that its relationship with the resident had become a barrier in engaging with him and impacted on its ability to deliver its services. It made several offers to meet with the resident and discuss way to improve their relationship. The evidence also shows that in March 2023, it offered to arrange for an independent mediation service to help with improving their relationship. However, the resident refused the landlord’s offers because he did not feel the relationship with some of its staff could be improved. This Service cannot determine whether the relationship between the landlord and the resident could improve with mediation. Nevertheless, those were reasonable actions and offers from the landlord. It showed that it was committed to rebuilding trust with the resident.
  13. On 15 March 2023 the landlord shared the outcome of the inspection of the property with the resident. It explained that when it run water from his kitchen tap, it contained dark particles. It said that its specialist contractor recommended replacing the flexible hose pipe from under his kitchen sink. The evidence shows that once the faulty pipe was identified, the landlord promptly contacted the resident to complete the remedial repairs. It was appropriate from the landlord and in keeping with its maintenance policy timeframe to complete such repairs.
  14. In March 2023, the resident made several requests for the landlord to share the specialist contractor’s report with him. The landlord explained that it had not received a report and shared everything it had received with the resident. The resident did not believe the landlord and alleged that it withheld information from him. The landlord confirmed in its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint that it found no evidence that it had received a report from its specialist contractor or concealed it from the resident. This was reasonable from the landlord, it investigated the allegations and shared its findings with the resident.
  15. The Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. In this case, no evidence was seen to suggest that the landlord received a report from its specialist contractor and withheld it from the resident. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord on this aspect.
  16. In March 2023, the landlord’s specialist contractor confirmed to the landlord that the water was safe to drink. It explained that there no evidence of biofilm, legionella, coliforms, e-coli or metals in the water. It also said there was no evidence of biofilm within the water and while the water was unclean, it was safe to drink. We understand that the resident disputed the contractor’s conclusions and accounts. However, the landlord is entitled to trust the opinion and explanations of its experts. The landlord demonstrated that it appropriately acted on the resident’s concerns and investigated the matters with its specialist contractor.
  17. Nonetheless, while the water may have been safe to drink, all parties acknowledged the presence of dark particles in the kitchen tap water. It might have been helpful for the landlord to acknowledge this and recognise that while the water was safe to drink, it understood the resident’s concerns about drinking unclean water. The evidence shows that the landlord was sensitive to that fact, because on 22 March 2023, it offered to provide the resident with bottled water until it could replace the flexible hose pipe in his kitchen. Whilst the resident declined its offer, this shows that the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s concerns and keen to mitigate the impact on him.
  18. The evidence also shows that on 25 April 2023, the landlord offered for an independent party to retest the water to reassure the resident and move forward with replacing the faulty pipe. Although the resident refused its offer because the water had already been tested, the landlord showed its commitment in resolving the issue to his satisfaction. It also demonstrated that it understood the resident’s concerns and was keen to rebuild trust with him. In addition, it showed that it took reasonable and proportionate steps to meet his obligations.
  19. The evidence shows that following  communication with the resident, the specialist contractor replaced the flexible hose pipe on 12 July 2023. The resident immediately reported to the landlord that the new pipe was “illegal” and not compliant with WARS. The evidence shows that both the resident and the landlord carried out their own investigations into the matter. The landlord subsequently installed a new pipe on 28 August 2023.
  20. Under the circumstances, it is our understanding the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter. Please note, since this issue occurred following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident will need to raise a new complaint to the landlord regarding this issue. This is because in the interests of fairness, the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process. As above, if both parties cannot reach an agreement following the complaint responses from the landlord, the complaint can be brought to us for consideration.
  21. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failings in its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint. It offered to pay £1761.72 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to him. The landlord internal communications and communication with this Service indicates that the compensation offer was relating to its handling of the repairs to the water supply pipes in the property. The Ombudsman recognises that in this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to make a compensation offer to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
  22. However, in addition to the compensation offer, the landlord said that the compensation was “the final settlement for the inconvenience of all claims relating to the resident’s occupation of the property”. This was a confusing statement from the landlord. Whilst its intention may have been to convey this was his final offer in relation to this complaint, its statement could be interpretated differently. It could be taken as an intention to prevent the resident from making any additional claims regardless of what those could relate to, up to the date of the settlement. Whilst this was not a fair statement, no evidence was seen that it impacted on the overall outcome for the resident. The evidence shows that the resident declined the compensation offer as he felt that it did not reflect the inconvenience he experienced. In addition, he had already shared his intention of taking legal actions against the landlord.
  23. In summary, the landlord failed to act on some of its specialist contractor’s recommendations in 2021. It failed to repair water supply pipes in the resident’s property in keeping with its policy and obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the HHSRS. In 2021, the landlord failed to adequately investigate whether the water supply pipes to the property presented a hazard. We recognise that there were long periods without the resident raising the issue with the landlord. However, the landlord knew about the problem and should have been proactive in resolving the matter. Its failings to promptly resolve the problem caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a complaint.
  24. The evidence shows that from October 2022, the landlord remained active in its efforts to identify and fix the issue. It sought expert advice to sample the water and replaced the faulty flexible hose pipe. It also offered to provide the resident with bottled water. Therefore, this Service considers that between October 2022 and July 2023, it took reasonable steps to ensure that it was fulfilling its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  25. After considering all the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that the level of compensation the landlord offered was reasonable redress. This is because the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified in this report. The evidence shows that while the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to resolve the matter in 2021, it acknowledged its failings and made reasonable and proportionate attempts to put things right in 2022 and 2023.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, a stage 2 complaint within 3 working days of the complaint panel and it does not provide a timeframe to respond to a stage 3 complaint. It also states that if it needed longer to respond, it would contact the resident and advise of a new date to issue its response.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was not fully compliant with the Code. However, the landlord reviewed its complaints policy in June 2023 and it is now compliant. Therefore, we will not make a finding on the landlord’s compliance with the Code. In this case, we will determine whether the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in a reasonable and fair manner and in keeping with its policy .
  3. On 27 September 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports on the quality of the water at his property. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint 65 working days outside its published timeframe. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its policy.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 30 January 2023, which was 17 days after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response to his complaint. At which point, the landlord said it would respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It is unclear why the landlord chose to open a new complaint instead of escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord had closed the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2023. However, the resident requested to escalate his complaint within its published timeframe of 28 days of receiving his complaint response. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. While there is no evidence it impacted on the overall outcome for the resident, this was not in keeping with the landlord’s policy.
  5. Following opening a new stage 1 complaint on 30 January 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within its published timeframe and what is expected from landlords. This was reasonable from the landlord.
  6. On 20 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord provided its stage 3 response 58 working days later. Whilst the landlord’s policy does not provide a timeframe to respond to a stage 3 complaint, this was a long time for the resident to wait for the landlord’s final response to his complaint. It would have been reasonable for the resident to expect a response within 20 working days.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint policy states that if it needs more time to respond to a complaint, it will contact the resident and provide a new date by which it will respond. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it explained or discussed the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint with him. This was unreasonable from the landlord. The landlord should have handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy.
  8. Good complaint handling is essential to rebuild trust with residents. In this case, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We recognise that in keeping with its complaints policy the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within its published timeframe. Whilst this was reasonable, the evidence shows that it failed to respond to the resident’s first complaint within its published timeframe. Additionally, it also failed to respond to the resident’s stage 3 complaint within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings and has made no attempt to put it right and apologise to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman acknowledges that no evidence was seen that the landlord’s failings impacted on the resident’s overall outcome. Nevertheless, in line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the communal stairwell.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant about its handling of the repairs to the water supply pipes prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. The landlord is ordered to pay £175 in compensation directly to the resident. This is equivalent to:
      1. £75 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in respect of its handling of the repairs to the communal stairwell.
      2. £100 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to make good on its offer to pay the resident £1761.72 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to him in respect of its handling of the repairs to the water supply pipes. We also recommend that the landlord rewrite its compensation offer to clarify that it is its final offer, without suggesting that the resident would not be able to make further complaints if additional issues arise.
  2. The landlord must progress any new issues the resident raises through its internal complaints procedure. The landlord must provide responses to the resident in accordance with its policy.