Peabody Trust (202305492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305492

Peabody Trust

30 April 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for:
1. roof and guttering repairs.
2. permanent rehousing.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor of a 3-storey building. The resident suffers osteopenia, knee, and hand pains. She also suffers from anxiety and depression. The landlord did not hold any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord raised a work order as there was a leak from the roof into the bedroom ceiling. On 15 June 2022, the landlord attended and observed the damage but advised that nothing could be done until scaffolding was in place. On 1 July 2022, the landlord responded to an emergency work order and its repair notes show that it checked the ceiling, and it was safe. It cancelled the previous work order to repair the roof but failed to advise the resident.
On 25 August 2022, the resident reported that water had come through the bedroom ceiling due to overnight rain and most electrics and plug sockets were not working throughout the property. The landlord attended the same day to make the ceiling and electrics safe. The resident complained to the landlord on the same day that there was no excuse for closing the last repair order and that water ingress continued. On 5 September 2022, in a telephone call, the resident raised a formal complaint because the landlord closed the work order while the issue remained unresolved.
On 20 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed that the complaint was about the leaking roof affecting the bedroom. The landlord stated that its contractor attended her property on 1 July 2022 and advised there was no evidence of a leak, so the job was closed pending further rainfall to confirm if there was a leak. The landlord advised that it raised a further work order following a further report of rain and it had now erected scaffolding. It stated that it would not compensate for loss of use of the bedroom as its contractor had not confirmed the room was unusable. As a resolution, it advised that it would repair the roof and then complete remedial works to the affected areas.
On the same day, the resident replied that the complaint response had not considered the water ingress through her ceiling and bedroom window, or the damage caused to her personal belongings, highlighting that it had cut off the electric to the bedroom. She said that she was sleeping on her couch because the bedroom was not usable as furniture was covered with plastic to prevent further water damage. The resident was concerned that the leak would spread and damage more property. She said that there was scaffolding erected at the front of the property but there was a leak from the rear also.
An outlet was unblocked on 25 November 2022 and guttering renewed on 8 December 2022. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 8 December 2022. The contractor advised that it carried out a post inspection on 20 December 2022 and confirmed to the landlord that it completed roof works on 30 December 2022. On 10 January 2023, the resident requested an update on the repairs and emailed the landlord on 11 January 2023 requesting what work had been completed to the roof and guttering. The landlord replied on 12 January 2023 confirming details of the completed works and advised that it would inspect remedial repairs.
On 16 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord concerned that the leaking roof would be a continuing issue. She said that she lost use of her bedroom since May 2022 and the water ingress had caused damage to her property and personal belongings. She requested a timeframe from the landlord to complete the remedial internal repairs.
The landlord surveyed the property on 24 January 2023 and a building surveyor attended in February 2023 (date unknown). The landlord advised the resident on 24 February 2024 that a ramp was required to complete external repairs and that it may need to decant her while remedial internal repairs were completed. Whilst this Service was not provided with a copy of the survey report, internal email correspondence of the landlord refers to the findings and set out a scope of works required. The survey findings recommended:
1. Bedroom: take down the ceiling and re-instate, plaster and paint. Walls also require making good and decorating, the radiator has already been drained down and removed, mastic window reveal. Dehumidifier may be required to ensure that the external walls are dry before making good and painting, floorboards removed and re-fixed where required, renew ceiling light, re-hand and connect radiator, reinstate secondary glazing as it will require removal to do making good works.
2. Entrance hallway, living room, kitchen: Make good walls and ceiling, stain block where required and paint complete.
3. Bathroom: make good and paint.
4. Remove loft insulation and replace and treat roof timbers for mould.
5. Roofing contractor to advise on possible works to double inverted roof, install a leaf guard into the valley, put a leak guard on 2 hoppers, apply a waterproof clear sealant above and around the windows to prevent water ingress if the hoppers block again, fit some sort of deflection above the window heads to direct water away if the hoppers block.
6. Setting up of a 6 or 12 month maintenance contract to clean off the double valleys and hoppers.
On 6 March 2023, the resident escalated her complaint because the roof repairs recommended in the survey, and remedial repairs were outstanding. On 6 April 2023, the landlord asked her for additional information for the complaint investigation. On 11 April 2023, the resident said that there was no electricity or heating in the bedroom. She said that there were repairs to be completed and water ingress had damaged her property and personal belongings. She had not slept in her bed for almost a year. She felt there was a structural issue, and that water ingress was causing electrical hazards. As a resolution, she wanted a permanent move and appropriate compensation.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It advised that the building surveyor had completed the necessary paperwork to support a decant, however, it was not determined that the decant would be permanent. As a resolution to the complaint, it advised it would decant her for 8 weeks to complete the repairs. It also advised that it would consider the damage caused to her personal belongings in its final offer of compensation, saying it would keep the complaint open until the resolution of repairs. It offered compensation of £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and £250 for its complaint handling.
After the stage 2 complaints response, there is evidence the landlord arranged for a decant in September 2023, but the resident did not go ahead with it on medical grounds. The landlord subsequently arranged a survey of the property to ascertain if the repairs could be completed without decanting the resident. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she advised that she did not have use of her bedroom. The electrics and heating had been disconnected in her bedroom and she slept on her couch. Water ingress had damaged her personal belongings, and the property was cold and damp. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to complete the repair, appropriate compensation, and a permanent move.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident complained to this Service that the landlord had not considered her request for a permanent move. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that “the Ombudsman my not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
The evidence indicates that a surveyor recommended a temporary decant and the resident subsequently made a request for a permanent move on medical grounds. This is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Scope of investigation

The resident complained that she had experienced water ingress for a period of 30 years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 7 June 2022 onwards. This is when a repair order was raised to investigate if a leak had reoccurred from a previous roof repair. This was the reason for the subject complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2023. This Service has received correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the complaint and the substantive issues of the complaint remain outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s roof and guttering repair requests

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the external structure of the property, including the roof. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of water ingress and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
Landlords are required, in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to “identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings”. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy describes programmed repairs as works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity, or specialist trade. Examples of a programmed repair is roofing works with scaffolding. Its timescales for these repairs are 60 calendar days.
The landlord has a decant policy which states that:
1. It may make a discretionary payment of £200 to tenants that qualify to be decanted but choose to remain in their home whilst it carries out the necessary works. This is in recognition of the intrusion and level of disturbance caused by certain works.
2. It encourages tenants to stay with family or friends for the duration of a temporary decant. It may make payment to the tenant for the inconvenience. The rate of payment for a 1-bedroom property is £50 per week.
3. It may permit tenants and occupants to locate their own temporary accommodation, where it is more cost effective than our own provision. We will require a legal agreement to be drawn up for this purpose.
The landlord’s compensation policy has a room loss allowance which states that it will provide compensation for loss of use of a room based on a percentage of the weekly rent. The loss of use of the bedroom is 20% of the weekly rent after the first 48 hours. It will also assess if a customer has not had full enjoyment of their home and consider the lack of overall enjoyment of the home.
When a leak is reported it would be reasonable for the landlord to survey the property to attempt to verify the source of the leak and rectify the issue. The evidence shows that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 June 2022, but this Service has received no repair notes to confirm if it identified a leak. However, the resident complained on this day that its contractors advised that no preventative work could take place until scaffolding was erected. It is not clear if the landlord identified a further leak during this inspection and this Service cannot reasonably conclude if the landlord should have erected scaffolding to investigate further.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident reports of a leak into the property was inappropriate. It closed the initial work order without advising the resident. It advised the resident that it had planned to return and inspect the leak after heavy rainfall, however, it did not have an open work order to do this. It is unclear to this Service how it intended to action this plan as it had not made arrangements or agreed its plan with the resident.
After attending to 2 emergency repair requests, it failed to raise a further work order to investigate the leak. This was a particularly significant failing given that the leak had affected electrics throughout the property, and it had cut the electricity supply to the bedroom as a safety measure.
Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord only responded to the resident’s reports of a roof leak after she raised a formal complaint on 5 September 2022. This was inappropriate. Based on the landlord’s repair records and the reports by the resident, it was evident that a leak had reoccurred which required investigation. The resident should not have had to make a complaint before the landlord acted. The landlord’s response was reactive and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 28 September 2022, the landlord’s notes show that it attempted to call the resident and wrote to her to book in a roofing repair appointment. On 3 October 2022, a repair record noted that the resident was angry at being asked to take time off work for the roofing repair when the landlord had not erected scaffolding at the rear of the property. It is evident that this caused further frustration for the resident who was unhappy because she felt she was not required to provide access to erect scaffolding.
On 18 October 2022, the resident reported that the scaffolding to the rear had not been erected and that damp and mould was spreading into the living room ceiling. She reported that she had recently come out of hospital and was sleeping on her sofa. The landlord’s records show that its contractor provided a quote for scaffolding on 27 October 2022 which was approved. The records are not clear but indicate that the scaffolding was erected in early November 2022. This was 2 months after the resident raised a formal complaint.
The landlord’s records indicates that it had difficulty with access to erect the scaffolding but because the records are not clear it is difficult for this Service to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s delay in arranging the scaffolding. This represents poor record keeping which has been assessed separately.
The landlord completed the guttering repair in November and December and carried out a mould wash to the property on 8 December 2022. On 11 January 2023, the resident asked what work the landlord had completed and raised concerns that the roof leak would reoccur. The landlord provided details of the completed work by the contractor. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to provide assurance to the resident that it had completed the works satisfactorily.
The landlord surveyed the property on 24 January 2023 and arranged for a further joint visit with a building surveyor to provide a scope of works for external repairs and remedial internal repairs due to damp in the property. The landlord’s records are unclear, but this survey appears to have taken place on 24 February 2023. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to put things right.
The landlord indicated to the resident that it may need to decant her temporarily while it carried out the internal repairs. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the survey report. On balance, based on the landlord’s internal references to the surveyor’s report and its correspondence with the resident, it is reasonable to conclude that the surveyor had recommended a temporary decant until the repairs were completed.
The landlord has not demonstrated any urgency to complete the repairs, which was a significant failure especially given the resident’s circumstances. She did not have use of her bedroom as the electric and radiator had been disconnected. The property required treatment for mould in the loft, insulation in the loft needed to be replaced, and her bedroom ceiling required replacement. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its responsibilities under HHSRS when it became aware of the mould in the loft. The mould treatment remains outstanding.
When it received the surveyor report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider any immediate actions it could take to improve the property conditions. It could have considered the surveyors recommendations of re-instating the heating and electrics in the bedroom and using dehumidifiers to dry out the external walls. It then could have considered completing the mould treatment. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service these works remained outstanding.
Based on internal correspondence, the landlord’s repair team completed a decant form and sent it to its priority housing team to arrange a temporary decant on 30 March 2023, but this was not actioned until 10 May 2023 when the landlord was investigating the complaint at stage 2. This was 75 days since the surveyor recommended a temporary decant. This was an unreasonable delay which indicates that the landlord’s internal processes were not operating effectively.
At this stage, internal correspondence shows that it would be a further 8 weeks before it could offer her a decant. This would bring the timeframe to 131 days since the temporary decant was recommended. Whilst there is no specified timeframe in which to arrange a temporary decant in its policy, given the condition of the property and the fact that she did not have use of her bedroom the landlord’s delay was unreasonable and inappropriate. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed considerably in arranging a decant in its stage 2 complaint response and made a compensation offer of £400 redress.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered offering the resident a discretionary payment for inconvenience if she remained in the property while it carried out repairs. After a failed decant, (after the stage 2 complaint response) the landlord arranged another survey to confirm if it could carry out internal repairs without decanting the resident. This demonstrates that this course of action could have been considered at a much earlier stage.
Whilst it was not appropriate for the resident to be sleeping on her couch, this was the reality, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have at least considered completing the internal works without decanting her. The landlord also had the option of offering an inconvenience payment if the resident arranged to live with family and friends for the duration of the repair or asking the resident to source a more cost-effective temporary accommodation. There is no evidence available to this Service that it made these offers. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered all reasonable options available to it in respect of the temporary decant. As a result, it failed to improve the property conditions and it failed in its obligations to keep the property in good repair.
The landlord’s internal departments did not work cohesively for the benefit of the resident, and it is evident that it was reactive to the complaint investigation. When the complaint was investigated at stage 1, the repair process began on the roof and guttering. When the complaint was investigated at stage 2, the repairs team advised it was awaiting a decant to complete the repairs. The team arranging the decant were unaware of the decant request and subsequently began the decant process. This was inappropriate. The complaints process should be used as a mechanism to put things right, however, in this instance the complaints process appeared to drive performance.
The resident advised that she has not had use of her bedroom since May 2022. The landlord’s contractors visited the property on 4 July 2022 but did not report that the bedroom was unusable. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord is responsible for the resident’s loss of use of her bedroom from 25 August 2022, when it cut the electric supply. Based on emails referring to the property survey the heating was also disconnected to the bedroom and the loft insulation was damp. It is reasonable to conclude that the property had been left damp, with inadequate heating and insulation since August 2022.
The associated impact on the resident has been significant. She suffers from osteopenia and has been sleeping on her couch. She suffers from depression and anxiety which was exacerbated by the landlord’s failings. These failings significantly contributed to the distress caused to the resident. It is also reasonable to conclude that the inadequate insulation would have increased the resident’s utility bills and significantly impacted the resident’s living conditions.
This Service finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s roof and guttering repair requests. This is because it failed initially to appropriately investigate the leak and then repair it within its timeframes. It failed to carry out remedial repairs the within its timeframes and it failed to carry out further preventative external repairs recommended by the surveyor. The landlord failed to consider its responsibilities to keep the property in good repair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, or HHRSRS, to consider the potential hazard of damp and mould. It failed to demonstrate any learning specific to its failures in addressing the reports of mould in its complaint’s response and the mould at the property remains untreated.
It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged some failings and offered redress of £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience for the delay in its decant process and repair obligations. However, the offer of redress did not put things right and was not sufficient in the circumstances. When assessing an appropriate compensation figure this Service has considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, the considerable repairs delay and the fact that the substantive issues remain unresolved. Correspondence between the resident and landlord indicated these failures caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. An order has been made below in line with this Services Remedies Guidance for distress and inconvenience further to the landlord’s offer.
The resident lost use of her bedroom for a period of 86 weeks directly attributable to the landlord’s failures. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the landlord’s compensation policy of 20% of the weekly rent for this period. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident lost enjoyment of the rest of her home because of the inadequate heating and insulation and had increased utility bills for 86 weeks. A further 5% of the resident’s weekly rent has been included in the order of compensation to reflect this loss of enjoyment.
As part of a previous case (202122259) the landlord carried out a comprehensive review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. This Service has not made any orders or recommendations specific to its response to reports of mould as part of this case, because this case has overlapped with this review.

Complaint handling

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it is recommended that landlords acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days to confirm what the complaint is about and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint escalation. The landlord’s timescales are in line with the Code.
The landlord failed to identify and acknowledge the complaint initially. On 15 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with a heading “complaint regarding continuing maintenance failures” and on 19 August 2022, a further email about a cancelled repair order contained the wording “please note this is a formal complaint”. She reported that there had been torrential rain and water in the loft had increased. She said that her patience was exhausted, she was stressed, and enclosed images of the damage. The complaint was not identified until 5 September 2022 in a telephone call with the resident. This was inappropriate and represents a service failure by the landlord.
The landlord should have sent the resident an acknowledgement that defined the complaint in the first instance so that the resident has an opportunity to agree the complaint definition. On the same day that the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the resident remained unhappy as she felt that it did not address all the issues and said that she would be taking legal action if it did not address all of the outstanding issues. This demonstrates the importance of formally acknowledging the complaint.
The stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It did not refer to the cancelled work order or apologise for it. It stated that it would not consider compensating her for the loss of use of her bedroom because its surveyor or contractor had not confirmed it was out of use. This was not appropriate because it had not surveyed the property since it disconnected the electric in her bedroom. It would have been appropriate for it to consider compensation pending the outcome of a survey.
After the stage 1 complaint response and the subsequent repairs, the resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2022 clearly dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, but the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. An internal record shows the landlord received a complaint escalation by telephone on 6 March 2023 and the resident subsequently emailed the landlord on 20 March 2023 requesting an update. The landlord requested more information from the resident on 11 April 2023, which was received on the same day, however, the final complaint response was not issued until 15 May 2023.
This was an unreasonable and inappropriate delay outside of the Code’s and its own complaint policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its complaint response and committed to improving its complaint handling.
It is noted that the complaint investigation was hampered by poor communication between departments. The complaint appeared to drive the repairs team and decant team into action and the landlord was attempting to address substantive issues before providing its final complaint response.
In its stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged the property damage caused and stated that it would consider this in its final offer of compensation. This was inappropriate. The complaints process should be used as a mechanism to put things right for the resident. If the landlord did not have the information to provide an appropriate offer of compensation at that time, a more reasonable response would have been to offer to assess the property damage within an agreed timeframe and make an offer of compensation. As such, the resident’s property damage has not yet been addressed.
These failures had a significant impact on the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would have completed the repairs at an earlier stage if it had identified and addressed the initial complaint appropriately. Furthermore, the resident would have been able to bring her complaint to this Service at an earlier stage. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered redress for its complaint handling failures of £250 however, this Service finds that this offer was insufficient in the circumstances.
This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged some failings. It acknowledged that it delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not recognise its failure to initially identify, acknowledge and escalate the complaint in line with the Code. It also failed to appropriately address the resident’s property damage when assessing compensation. The landlord made an offer of redress which went some way to putting things right. If not for this offer, this Service would likely have found severe maladministration.
It is recognised that the landlord has recently provided a learning statement (link below) which demonstrates a commitment to improving its complaint handling practices. In line with this commitment, an order has been made for the landlord to review this case, to identify learnings it can make to improve its complaint handling, particularly with identifying, acknowledging, and escalating complaints.

Record keeping.

This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s poor record keeping. The repair records were difficult to follow. Multiple repair orders were raised and cancelled for the same issue. It was unclear what repairs the landlord completed and when it completed it. This was particularly evident in January 2023 when the landlord emailed its contractor to provide details of work it had completed because the resident requested this information.
Furthermore, this Service did not receive a copy of the survey of the property recommending remedial works. As such it was difficult to assess extent of the damp and mould or the property conditions in which the resident was living.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s repair record keeping was inappropriate.
The landlord internal processes were affected by its poor record keeping. This was especially evidenced when its complaint investigation identified that its housing priority team had not opened or assigned the residents decant case, while its repairs team were awaiting a decant before completing repairs. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a significant contributing factor to the delays experienced by the resident.
This Service recognises that the landlord has recently provided a learning statement (link below) which demonstrates a commitment to improving its record keeping practices. This Service has ordered a review of this case to identify learning in line with the landlord’s recent commitment.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/03/05/peabody-4-severe-maladministration-findings/

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to rehouse the resident permanently is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for roofing and guttering repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

It is ordered that the chief executive for the landlord apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered that a qualified person attend the property to identify any outstanding repairs required and set out an action plan with timescales of when the work and remedial repairs will be completed.
It is ordered that the landlord assess the resident’s property damage and consider an offer of compensation in line with its stage 2 complaint response.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £4815 compromising:
1. £2000 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in responding to the roofing and guttering repairs.
2. £2315 for loss of enjoyment of the property representing 25% of the average rent for the area (as set out in paragraph 52) for a period of 86 weeks from when the resident lost use of her bedroom until the date of this report. (average weekly rent table below).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies#live-tables-on-rents

£500 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
If the landlord has already paid £650 it offered to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.

It is ordered that the landlord carry out a review of this case and identifies any learning it can apply to improve its repair, complaint handling, and record keeping practices in line with its recent learning statement.
The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.