Aster Group Limited (202122022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122022

Aster Group Limited

9 July 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s block.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and her partner are assured non-shorthold tenants of a one-bedroom ground floor flat, in a block owned by the landlord.
On 24 June 2021 the council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) conducted a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment of the resident’s home. This was prompted by a request from the resident who was being supported by Citizens Advice. The council wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2021 with the outcome of its assessment detailing a list of hazards at the property and the timescale in which the landlord should resolve these.
On 29 July 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she was unhappy with delays to repairs in her property which resulted in her contacting the EHO at the council. She also raised concerns with the poor quality of work to a repair to her radiator and scaffolding remaining at the property. She told the landlord its communication around appointments and in general was not good enough and an employee of the landlord was treating her poorly.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 9 September 2021. It detailed all the hazards highlighted in the council’s HHSRS assessment, including what it would do to rectify each hazard and a timescale it would complete each one by. It promised all hazards would be rectified by no later than 31 December 2021 and provided a point of contact. It explained scaffolding remained at the property to allow for potential further works to be completed, it apologised it did not explain this earlier. It apologised for its communication not meeting its standards highlighting the impact of COVID-19. It agreed to rectify its system to ensure the resident’s name appeared correctly on all correspondence. The landlord offered her £150 compensation, broken down as £100 for failed appointments and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 23 September 2021. She was concerned she would be charged through her service charge for the scaffolding remaining at her property for a prolonged period and for any rework to insufficient repairs completed in her property. She asked for reassurance about improvements at her property and the landlord’s repair service. She said inadequate communication from the landlord had continued and detailed the impact this had caused to her mental health.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response on 15 October 2021. It told her there would be no additional charge through her service charge for the scaffolding or rework at her property. It apologised that its communication was insufficient and reaffirmed the dates it would complete repair works at her property. It advised the resident it had implemented a new system in 2020 to improve maintenance reporting and was actively improving the post inspection process. It told her it could not consider compensation for medical claims relating to the impact of damp and mould, but she could take legal advice or use its solicitors. It offered the resident further compensation of £50 for its “limited communications” taking the total compensation offered to £200.
On 1 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and told it the list of hazards raised by the council had not all been completed. She said communication from it was insufficient, it had attended for an appointment unannounced, and she had been unable to change her name correctly on its app. She said information in its stage two complaint about compensation for damp and mould was “fictitious” and not to do with her complaint.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response including the delays in completing repairs and the way it had handled her complaint with this Service. Her concerns were accepted for investigation on 30 November 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2023 in follow up to its stage two complaint response of 15 October 2021. It believed there were communal repairs outstanding, and it had completed a survey of the communal areas in September 2023. It confirmed it was taking action to complete outstanding work there which formed part of the resident’s initial complaint. It apologised for the time taken and for its lack of communication. It offered compensation of £1700, broken down as £500 for each year the repairs remained outstanding and £200 for poor record keeping and communications.
The resident accepted the landlord’s apology and compensation offer on 1 December 2023. She hoped things improved in the future and highlighted the upset and distress caused to her. On 14 December 2023 the landlord completed all remaining repair work to the communal areas of the building it highlighted in its email to the resident on 15 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s block.

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy confirms it endeavours to carry out repairs in time agreed to the required standard. It categorises the types of repairs it will carry out as follows:
1. Emergency repairs: where the health, safety or security of a resident is at risk. It will complete an emergency repair in 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs: where it is it not an emergency but is likely to cause further issues. It will complete urgent repairs in 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs: reported repairs that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance. It will complete routine repairs in 20 working days.
The Responsive Repairs Policy states it will complete post inspections out by a surveyor or team leader following repair.
The landlord’s Fire Safety Management Procedure, Fire Safety Actions states Minor defects identified to a fire door would generally be categorised as an amber risk, allowing up to 6 months to undertake necessary remedial work. Based on the evidence provided this would be categorised as an amber risk.

Delays.

There were a number of repairs ordered for the resident’s property by the landlord following the HHSRS report of 14 July 2021. The landlord was delayed in raising all but one of these, as will be discussed later in this report, until 9 September 2021 when it provided its stage one complaint response to the resident. This delay caused the resident to feel uncertainty and concern over whether the landlord was taking its responsibility to resolve the issues seriously.
Its stage one complaint of 9 September 2021 response set timescales in which it would complete repairs. In accordance with the Responsive Repairs Policy routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Therefore, from the 9 September the last date in which any routine repairs could be completed was 7 October 2021. The following repairs were correctly completed within this timescale:
1. Repair to the wall behind the radiator.
2. Bottom of interior doors planed to reduce damage to laminate flooring.
There were a number of repairs that were completed outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timescale in its Responsive Repairs Policy. These are summarised below:
1. Repairs to the windows completed by 31 October 2021. This was a total of 37 working days, exceeding the policy by 17 working days.
2. Repair to defective plasterwork by 30 November 2021. This was a total of 59 working days, exceeding the policy by 39 working days.
3. Cutting back of foliage in car park by 31 October 2021. This was a total of 37 working days, exceeding the policy by 17 working days.
Despite the landlord confirming in it stage one and two complaint responses it would complete all outstanding repairs by 31 December 2021. There are a number of repairs that remained outstanding for a long period as follows:
1. Repair to door to make it fire safe.
  1. Repairs required to make the resident’s door fire safe met the Fire Safety Management Procedure definition of an amber repair. In line with the policy, the landlord had 6 months to make it safe.
  2. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response this would be complete by 8 September 2021 and its notes show this was completed. However, in its email to the resident on 15 November 2023 it admitted this had not been completed and went on to complete the repair on 14 December 2023. The total time for repair from 9 September 2021 was 827 calendar days. The health and safety implications of this are detailed later in this report.
  3. There is no evidence a post inspection of the work was carried out from 8 September 2021. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to discover the work had not been completed.
2. Repair to glazing in communal area and installation of a lock on the communal bin store.
  1. The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response of 9 September 2021 it would replace the glazing at the communal entrance of the property by 31 October 2021 and install a new communal bin lock by 30 November 2021. Neither of these routine repairs were completed until 14 December 2021. The total time for repair from 9 September 2021 was 827 calendar days.
The landlord’s failures highlighted above were responsible for causing uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period. There was a breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and resident which affected her confidence the landlord would promptly support and resolve issues she had reported.
The resident complained on 20 August 2021 she was concerned by the length of time scaffolding had been erected at her property. She believed this was because the landlord had not paid the bill. It offered an appropriate response in its stage one complaint response telling her it remained to take advantage of planned future work. It assured her in its stage two complaint response the cost of the scaffolding would not be met by the resident. However, it should have done this much sooner to ease the resident’s concern.
In summary the landlord was delayed in raising the repairs noted in the HHSRS report. When it raised the repairs highlighted by the HHSRS report and further reports from the resident, all but two failed to meet the timescales within its Responsive Repairs Policy but were completed within 3 months of being raised. Important repairs to the communal bin store and an emergency repair to make the resident’s door fire safe remained for over 2 years. It is of serious concern the issues remained unchecked for such a long period.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in repair the resident’s structure, doors and communal areas of the building. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for its missed appointments and distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation award will be assessed later in this report.

Health and safety.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that it has a “safety first culture, ensuring customer and the landlord’s safety and wellbeing comes first”. It states an emergency repair is classed as a repair that is required as it puts the health, safety, or security of a customer at risk, and it will complete in 24 hours.
Although it is uncertain how long the issues raised in the HHSRS report of 14 July 2021 were present at the resident’s property, the resident was sufficiently concerned about the impact on her wellbeing. As such she contacted the council’s Environmental Health team who completed the HHSRS report on the property. The report found 8 separate hazards impacting the resident, including excess cold, excess heat, uncombusted fuel gas, damp and mould growth, personal hygiene and fire safety. The landlord resolved the issues raised in the report within a reasonable period but failed to resolve the issues of a missing glazing unit at the communal entrance and work to make the resident’s door fire safe.
The Housing Act 2004 which includes the HHSRS states that the main requirements of fire safety include that a tenant can escape easily in the case of a fire. It details the necessity of making repairs to “the fabric of the property” in a “timely manner” so fire cannot spread easily.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires landlords to carry out fire risk assessment in the common areas of flats and maisonettes.
The Environmental Health HHSRS report to the landlord of 14 July 2021 stated the fire door between the flats had large gaps and did not provide 30 minutes of separation in case of a fire. It stressed there was increased likelihood a fire will spread due to inadequate separation between flats and communal areas. The report stated the landlord had 7 days to complete the repair and send the council a copy of its fire assessment report. The landlord did not take action to complete the repair to the door to ensure it was fire safe until 14 December 2023, a total of 884 days.
In causing the delay in completing the repair to make the doors fire safe the landlord failed to meet its “safety first culture” and it failed to put the wellbeing of its resident first. This is alarming for the following reasons:
1. The landlord exceeded the HHSRS report request to make the doors fire safe by 877 days. This was despite the report informing it of the increased likelihood a fire would spread.
2. The landlord failed to comply with the Housing Act 2004 in ensuring the resident could easily escape in the case of a fire.
3. The residents in the block were put at risk in the case of fire for the whole period (14 July 2021 to 14 December 2023) whilst the door was not fire safe.
The landlord has provided evidence to show that it had completed Fire Risk Assessments on 3 March 2019 and on 11 April 2022. It has also provided a copy of its Fire Safety Management Procedure- ‘Fire Safety Actions’ to indicate that the repair to the resident’s door to make it fire safe was an amber repair rather than an emergency repair and therefore it had six months to complete the repair in line with this policy. Whilst this may be the case under the landlord’s policy, it is clear Environmental Health had concerns about the efficacy of the door and proposed a timescale of two weeks to complete the repair, given that the missing strip to the door would compromise the fire safety of the door, thus failing to ensure that the door provided the required 30-minute protection to the communal areas, should a fire occur. As such, given the potential level of risk, the six-month timescale to do the repair was unreasonable. It should be noted that the Fire Safety Management Procedure- ‘Fire Safety Actions’ document provided was undated and the entire document was not provided to ensure that the policy was in line with the landlord’s legal obligations and advice from a fire safety authority. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this information regarding the landlord’s own timescales and Fire Risk Management policy were communicated to the resident or Environmental Health at the time that Environmental Health provided the landlord with the report on 14 July 2021.
The landlord has provided evidence to show that the resident’s door repairs were completed on 8 September 2021 however, there are notes to indicate that the repair was not completed in line with the description as per a further undated document. Evidence provided to this Service shows that a job was raised in November 2023 to make good the gaps between the resident’s entrance fire door to the frame opening and an indication that there were issues with the appointment. Furthermore, had the jobs been completed correctly as per the landlord’s new evidence to this Service within the timescales stipulated, there would have been no need for the landlord to issue a further response to the resident after the stage two response, admitting that repairs were still outstanding and offering the resident £1,500 for these delays. The works that were confirmed as outstanding in November 2023 were to the door gaps, redoing the glazed screen in the communal area and updating the lock to the communal bin area. As such, whilst the landlord has indicated that the works were completed, there is contradicting information within its own evidence to suggest that the work was not completed correctly until December 2023. As such the new evidence does not fully resolve the identified failings.
I note with regards to the communal fire door the landlord has confirmed that this was repaired on 21 December 2021 and there is no further evidence to confirm this particular door remained in disrepair after this date. It should still be noted that the repair was not done in line with the guidance from Environmental Health that it should have been done in seven days. As explained above, despite what was detailed in the landlord’s policy, that Environmental Health gave these guidelines on the basis of risk and to ensure that there was an adequate 30-minute separation of fire between the flats and communal areas, the landlord’s position remains unreasonable. The landlord did not provide the resident with any explanation about why it would not follow these timescales, nor is there evidence that it went back to Environmental Health to justify its decision not to follow its guidance.
Whilst the landlord has stated that the repairs to the communal bin store lock were considered an upgrade rather than a repair, this was never made clear to the resident. Furthermore, within the landlord’s response to the resident, it advised her that that the change to the lock would aim to be completed by 30 November 2021. As of November 2023, the lock had not been changed. The replacement of the lock was raised as it came to light that the gate to the communal bin was not secure, resulting in fly-tipping. As such, whilst the landlord considers the change to the lock an improvement, there was no evidence within its correspondence to the resident that this was not being considered as a repair given that the bin store closure at the time was not secure.

Quality of repairs.

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states it will attempt to complete repairs effectively, efficiently and to the satisfaction of the resident on the first visit.
The resident reported in her stage one complaint to the landlord that it had left a large hole behind her radiator when it previously replaced it on an unknown date. The landlord informed the resident in its stage one complaint response of 20 August 2021 what it would do to fix damage, but it took no accountability for the poor standard of repair (as it would later go on to do). It did not apologise, explain how it would follow this up with the contractor involved or if the resident would be charged. This left the resident feeling uncertain about whether the landlord was taking the issue seriously.
The landlord did go on to take accountability of the damage behind the radiator in its stage two complaint response of 23 September 2021, assuring the resident it would raise the issue with the contractor responsible and consider further training. It also reassured the resident that she would not be responsible for the cost of any rework. The action taken by the landlord was appropriate, but it should have done this earlier to limit the uncertainty felt by the resident.
The landlord does not confirm in its stage one or two complaint responses whether it completed a post review of the initial work that was completed to the radiator. A post inspection of the work completed could have supported alerting the landlord to the issue and responding sooner and without the resident having to raise this.

Communication and record keeping.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it will work with residents and have a range of options to allow them to book convenient times for works to be carried out. It will offer appointments for all repairs when reported and where it cannot, it will advise the resident it will contact them within 2 working days to arrange an appointment.
The Repairs Policy also states the landlord’s repairs team and external contractors will keep to any appointments that have been made. It will inform the resident where it cannot attend an arranged appointment, provide an explanation why and arrange a new appointment. It states it will continually check outstanding repairs near target date or out of target and liaise with its repair’s teams. All overdue jobs will have relevant notes to show how they are being managed.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one complaint response it failed to adequately inform the resident why scaffolding remained at her property, which it should have done from the earliest possible opportunity to limit any uncertainty and inconvenience the resident felt about the issue.
The resident raised in her stage one complaint she was desperate for the repairs to be completed and had contacted Citizens Advice who in turn contacted the council’s environmental health service. There is no evidence to suggest the status of the repairs issue prior to the HHSRS report of 14 July 2021. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage one and two complaint response.
Despite receiving the HHSRS report on 14 July 2021 there is no evidence the landlord was proactive in speaking with the resident about the outcome of the report and how it would complete the orders the report provided. The resident went on to raise it on 29 July 2021 and in her complaint of 20 August 2021. This caused her inconvenience and distress in her attempts to get the landlord to act on the repairs.
The landlord acted appropriately in detailing each of the individual repairs in its stage one complaint response and communicating specifically when each one would be completed by. It also acted appropriately in providing the resident with a named contact and contact details to liaise with about the upcoming repairs.
The resident raised with the landlord on 20 August 2021 it had removed her name from correspondence and was only communicating with her husband. The landlord acted appropriately in stating it would amend the initial screen of its records to show both names. It failed to explain why it had not recorded both names as default, prior to this. It also said it would complete the change by 31 September 2021, despite there being only 30 days in September, causing confusion on the timescale for completion.
The resident told the landlord on 20 August 2021 she was receiving letters for appointments after they had happened and at short notice including for the following day. The landlord’s stage two complaint response of 15 October 2021 acknowledged its communication had not been good and appointments had gone out of target due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is understandable. Its explanation that its contractors were completing short notice appointments was not in accordance with its Repairs Policy of working with residents to find a convenient appointment for repairs. Furthermore, its statement that “although of inconvenience (to the resident), it had been welcomed by other residents”, was not relevant and was not fully acknowledging the resident’s individual concerns about unplanned appointments.
Following the landlord’s stage two complaint of 15 October 2021 as previously established a number of repairs remained outstanding to the resident’s door, a communal window and the bin store remained unresolved until 14 December 2023.
1. It is of concern during this period that the landlord was not aware the repairs were still outstanding to the communal window and bin store. The landlord failed to adhere to its Responsive Repairs Policy that it would continue to check outstanding orders, including any near target date or out of target date and liaise with its in-house repairs team.
2. The repair to make the resident’s door fire safe had incorrectly been recorded as completed by the landlord, which is of significant concern and highlights poor record keeping and internal communication.
The landlord’s poor record keeping impacted its lack of communication with the resident about the outstanding repairs through the period 15 October 2021 to 15 November 2023, despite it being prompted by the resident raising the outstanding repairs on 1 July 2022 and her complaint about the matter being accepted by this Service on 30 November 2022. This lack of communication due to poor record keeping was unreasonable and caused distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty to the resident throughout.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Compensation.

The landlord’s Compensation Policy splits what it can offer into 3 categories, home loss, disturbance, and discretionary payments. It will determine compensation based on individual circumstances using all supporting evidence. It judges failures of service on published service standards and where it cannot, it will consider what is reasonable. It has a sliding scale for compensation inconvenience and distress as follows:
1. Short timescale/low impact complaint offering £0 to £50.
2. Medium timescale/impact complaint offering £100 to £150.
3. Long timescale/high impact complaint offering £200 to £250.
In its stage one complaint response the landlord offered £100 for failed appointments and £50 for distress and inconvenience. Its stage two complaint response increased compensation from £150 to £200 it said due to repeated calls from the resident and its “limited communications”. The total compensation falls within its long timescale/high impact complaint.
This Service finds the total compensation offered by the landlord in its stage two complaint response as insufficient. It failed to recognise:
1. The time and trouble suffered by the resident in chasing the repairs.
2. The extent of the detriment caused to the resident by the delay in completing the repairs in her property and the inconvenience in living with these.
3. Work was outstanding to repairs to the resident’s door, and bin store.
4. It failed to acknowledge all points of her complaint, as will be discussed in ‘Complaint handling’.
In the landlord’s follow-up letter dated 15 November 2023, it has acknowledged its own failures in managing the issues raised by the resident. It offered her compensation of £1700, broken down as £500 for each year of the 3 years the repairs remained outstanding and £200 for poor record keeping and communications.
The level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would consider reasonable for the acknowledged failures as, though the resident was affected over a protracted period, the detriment was not significant for the majority of this time. This is because the prolonged issues related to a communal area, plus a fire safety door. Therefore, an award of approximately £10 per week for the three years that the landlord has acknowledged failure for is considered reasonable. It is of concern however that the award has only recently been made and required the resident to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman before the unresolved issues were completed and appropriate compensation offered. Given the landlord did not use its complaints process to implement a full resolution and that its substantive offer of redress took place a considerable period after the end of the complaints process ended, a finding of severe maladministration has been identified here.
In addition, this report has highlighted a number of further issues including:
1. The landlord’s delay in taking action on the HHSRS report.
2. The lack of evidence surrounding its commitment to fire safety in the resident’s building.
3. Its inaccurate record keeping about the repairs it had completed.
4. Its poor communication with the resident about the repairs and her trouble in being recognised in correspondence from the landlord.
5. Its failure to meet its Responsive Repairs Policy regarding timescales for completing repairs and chasing outstanding repairs.
For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has awarded the resident an additional £300 in compensation for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords inappropriate handling of her reports about repairs to her building.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it “aims to get it right first time” and deal with complaints in a sensitive and timely manner to reach an amicable resolution. It will acknowledge, log, and allocate a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it. It will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. It can extend either by 10 working days with good reason.
In accordance with the policy the landlord must complete a learning log following a stage one complaint response for it to proactively assess and analyse complaints.
The resident’s initial complaint was made on 20 August 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its Complaints Policy when it was aware it would not be able to respond within 10 working days. It told the resident on 27 August 2021 it would reply within a further 10 workings days by 9 September 2021. It met this and replied on 9 September 2021.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 23 September 2021 and the landlord responded on 15 October 2021. This was equivalent to 17 working days and met the timescale of 20 working days for a stage two complaint response.
Following its stage one and two complaint responses the landlord requested internally that a learning log was completed. There is no evidence that these were returned which does not meet the Complaints Policy of completion of the logs to enable it to learn from the complaints it receives.
The stage two complaint response of 15 October 2021 made points about damp and mould in the resident’s property and her request for personal injury compensation. This Service can find no evidence of the resident raising this. The resident told the landlord on 1 July 2022 these points had nothing to do with her and it seems to have mixed her up with another resident. There is no evidence of the landlord replying to the resident to apologise or explain for why it included this information, which it should have done to help improve the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident raised in her stage one complaint she was desperate for the repairs to be completed and had contacted Citizens Advice who in turn contacted the council’s environmental health service. There is no evidence to suggest the status of the repairs issue prior to the HHSRS report of 14 July 2021. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage one and two complaint response.
Furthermore, in the resident’s stage one complaint the resident raised concerns with how a member of the landlord staff had spoken to her. This Service has seen evidence the same staff member used the phrase “getting it in both barrels” from the resident who was justifiably raising concerns about her complaint. This suggests there was a poor working relationship and a lack of focus on the customer. When the landlord was investigating the resident’s complaint it suggests it would consider a grievance against the staff member if it was valid. The landlord failed to further investigate the grievance and did not mention it during its stage one or stage two complaint response. An investigation could have highlighted any issues and provided reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to address all points raised by the resident about a grievance about its staff member and about delays to repairs prior to the HHSRS report and as such did not attempt to “get it right first time”. A determination of Service Failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, compensation of £150 has been awarded.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2150 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £2000 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the delays and inappropriate handling of her reports of repairs. This includes the £1700 offered by the landlord on 14 November 2023, if it has not already paid it.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord for its unreasonable complaint handling.
2. Conduct a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures considering both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
3. Review this case from a fire safety perspective and report back to this service on the outcome of this review, including any procedural changes it will implement as a result.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.