London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 March 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Concerns about fire safety within the building.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in 1 bedroom flat in a building comprising 3 flats, and her tenancy began in June 2000.
The landlord told this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the evidence seen for this investigation indicates that the resident referred to herself as having “vulnerable status” when discussing issues with the landlord. The resident reported she was vulnerable due to physical and mental health needs.
As part of a disrepair claim the resident was pursuing with the landlord, it arranged for a mutually agreed surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 9 June 2017. The surveyor produced a report that identified extensive repairs needed to the resident’s property and identified both category 1 and 2 hazards which included:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Electrical hazards.
3. Asbestos.
4. Weakened floor structure in the kitchen.
5. Defective windows.
6. Water penetration.
The surveyor recommended that the resident was decanted while the landlord completed the repairs. The landlord offered the resident the choice of a temporary or permanent decant on 21 November 2017.
The disrepair case went to court several times throughout the following years, and the process concluded on 10 February 2021 with both the resident’s disrepair claim, and the landlord’s claim for an injunction both struck out.
It is apparent that during the intervening period the landlord had been unable to gain access to do the repairs. The resident had requested, in order to grant access for the repairs, the surveyor who did the survey in June 2017 to oversee the repairs. The landlord was not agreeable to this condition, and stated it had “suitably qualified in house surveyors” who could oversee works. It stated the resident’s request would create “unnecessary further costs”.
The events described above are not within the scope of this investigation, but have been included here as important context for the events that followed.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 October 2021 and raised a concern about ASB from her neighbour and said:
1. They had been “harassing” and “hurling” abuse at her.
2. The neighbour was leaving refuse outside her property in order to make her “uncomfortable” in her home. This was also a fire safety risk.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day, and asked her to get in touch to discuss the incidents, and said it had discussed the allegations with her neighbour “at length”.
An ASB officer for the landlord attempted to contact the resident on 19 October 2021 to complete an ASB risk assessment, but was unable to get through. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2021 and said it had opened an ASB case. It explained it had been trying to get in touch to discuss the resident’s concerns, but was unable to get through. It asked her to provide a convenient time for it to discuss the matter with her. It does not appear the resident responded to the letter.
The landlord held a multi agency meeting about the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property on 4 November 2021. The resident’s local councillor (representing the resident), and the local authority were present. The notes from the meeting stated:
1. The landlord was “keen” to progress with the works identified in the survey of 2017, but the resident needed to be decanted in order to progress.
2. The resident had refused to be decanted unless it agreed that the surveyor from 2017 oversaw the repairs. It was not prepared to agree to this due to cost and “appropriateness”, and it had in house resource to oversee the works.
3. It had made multiple offers of alternative accommodation to the resident.
4. To encourage the resident to allow it to do works it was prepared to let her choose the contractor from its approved list.
5. If the resident did not agree to allow the works to go ahead it would seek a “legal order” to gain access, but it was “reluctant” to do so.
6. Notes from the meeting would be shared with the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2021 and explained how to download the ‘noise app’ to record any incidents of noise disturbance, in support of her ASB case. It does not appear the resident submitted any evidence to the landlord, through the noise app.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2022 and said it had closed her ASB case. It said that she had not responded to its requests for contact to discuss the case. The landlord provided a number to call if she wanted to pursue the ASB case, and provided a link to its policy on its website.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2022 to raise a concern about her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway, such as a buggy and a bike. She felt that this was causing a fire hazard. The resident asked it to tell the neighbour to remove the items, and said she had reported her concern to the fire brigade. The landlord responded on 30 March 2022 and advised it was waiting for a report from the fire brigade and would take “action accordingly.”
The resident contacted the local authority on 29 April 2022 and said that the landlord was “ignoring” its obligations to do the repairs. She asked it to “make sure” the landlord rectified the situation. The local authority responded on the same day and said:
1. It recognised that her property needed work to address the “disrepair”.
2. It did have powers to intervene when housing conditions endanger health. Its powers would involve taking legal action against the landlord to ensure the works went ahead.
3. It was of the view the landlord had been trying to undertake the works for “some time”, so legal action would have “no effect”.
4. It encouraged the resident to “engage” with the landlord, so that the works could go ahead.
The resident, the resident’s local councillor, and the landlord exchanged several emails throughout August 2022 in which the resident said she was agreeable to a permanent decant. The landlord agreed it would make an offer of compensation as part of an “overall agreement” once the decant was agreed.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 September 2022 and said she was having difficulty in getting the landlord to respond to her complaint. She said she had outstanding concerns about the repairs issue, and her reports of ASB. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
The resident emailed the local authority, and the landlord, on 21 October 2022 and asked the local authority for assistance in facilitating the repairs with the landlord. She outlined that she considered herself to have “vulnerable status”.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 October 2022, and said:
1. It had agreed to undertake all of the works identified by the surveyor in 2017.
2. Due to the extent of the works the resident would need to be decanted before the works could start.
3. It had made a total of 7 offers of temporary and permanent accommodation, all of which the resident had refused.
4. Given the time that had passed since the inspection of 2017, it wanted to inspect again to identify any further works.
5. It asked the resident to confirm she would provide access, and provide it with suitable dates to do so.
6. It said it would be unable to do the works needed until it was able to get access to the property.
7. It found it had adhered to its obligations and spent “considerable time and resources” assisting the resident.
8. In recognition of the “time and effort” she had spent contacting it, it offered £200 in compensation.
9. In relation to the ASB case it had investigated her concerns about rubbish being left in communal areas. It had “educated” the neighbour on their tenancy obligations to “mediate a resolution”.
10. It had referred the resident’s concerns about fire safety to its ‘fire risk assessment team’ to investigate, and they would contact her directly to discuss their findings.
The resident contacted the landlord, and this Service, on 21 December 2022 and said she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. She said that it had “harass[ed]” her to get her to give up her tenancy, and her property still suffered from “disrepair”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 December 2022 and said “due to a backlog” it was unable to provide a timeframe within which it would respond.
The landlord emailed the resident’s local councillor on 24 January 2023 and said it was “absolutely committed” to completing the works at her property. But, the resident had refused further offers of alternative accommodation and works had not started. It said it was “likely” it would use “legal routes to obtain access” to get the works done.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2023 and said:
1. It had not failed in its repairs obligations, and had the resident accepted its offers of temporary, or permanent, rehousing, the repairs would have been completed.
2. It was of the view the resident’s request for the surveyor from 2017 to oversee the repairs was “not a reasonable request”.
3. The offer of completing the repairs, and temporary or permanent rehousing, remained in place. It asked the resident to get in touch if she was willing to give access for a further inspection, and if she wanted another offer of alternative accommodation.
4. It had found that its fire safety risk assessment team had not followed up with her, as it had said in its stage 1 complaint response.
5. It apologised, and offered £120 for the “distress and inconvenience” caused by its handling of the issue.
6. It had briefed managers within that team and instructed them to complete further training with staff to improve its service.
7. It apologised for the delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response, and cited an “influx of cases” as the reason for the delay. It offered £100 in compensation in recognition of the delay.

Events after the complaint procedure

The resident contacted this Service on 3 April 2023 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint, and said the landlord “failed” to address her concerns in its response and it was “lying by omission”.
The landlord completed a fire safety risk assessment at the resident’s building on 17 July 2023. The risk assessment classed the property as “medium” risk, and identified remedial works to improve its fire safety.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states she has a responsibility to allow the landlord access, with reasonable notice, to carry out works.
The landlord’s rehousing (decant) policy states that for both temporary and permanent decants it makes 1 “reasonable offer” of alternative accommodation. The policy states that if there is a “high risk” health and safety issue, and the resident refuses an offer of accommodation, it will consider taking legal action to ensure the resident moves.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states that when a resident tells it they are vulnerable it will keep a record of the relevant details on its system. The policy states that it will “tailor” its service to the individual needs of a vulnerable resident including signposting and referring to external agencies.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will interview those reporting ASB, and complete a risk assessment with them in order to measure harm and protect them from future harm. The policy states it will close an ASB case if the person reporting ASB fails to engage with its assessment, and it will write to them to inform them of why the case is being closed.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states that it conducts risk assessments every 4 years for 3 to 4 story buildings.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award up to £60 each for distress and inconvenience. The policy states it can award up to £200 for time and effort.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it operates a 2 stage procedure. Stage 1 complaint responses will be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days. The policy states that if it cannot send a stage 2 response within 20 working days it will explain why and “write again” within a further 10 working days.

Repairs

That the resident’s property was in need of extensive repairs is not disputed. The evidence indicates the landlord sought to complete all repairs recommended in the survey of June 2017. The landlord’s handling of the repairs from around that time, up to the time the legal case was concluded in February 2021 are not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with our Scheme, which states we will not investigate matter that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings. As such, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs after the legal proceedings concluded, in February 2021, up until the resident exhausted its complaints procedure in March 2023.
Throughout her complaint the resident raised a concern that the landlord was “harassing” “discriminating” against her when seeking access to do repairs. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s claims, which are very serious, and does not seek to dispute her concerns. However, allegations of harassment and discrimination are complaints which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the scope of this investigation to make a determination on whether the landlord harassed or discriminated against the resident. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. Instead, this investigation has considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances of the case.
The resident sent the landlord a large number of emails during the period this investigation covers (February 2021 to March 2023). Overall, the landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to discuss her concerns. The resident said that the landlord was not responding to her, or addressing her concerns. From evidence seen, this was not the case. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident throughout, and tried to manage her expectations about how often it could respond. It is noted that being in receipt of large volumes of correspondence impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to all of the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord offered the resident a choice of permanent or temporary decant throughout the course of her complaint. The evidence indicates that this offer was open to the resident from 2017, up until she exhausted its complaint procedure. The landlord appropriately applied its policy on decants, when it became apparent a decant was needed in order for it to complete repairs, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
In fact, the landlord went beyond the requirements set out in its policy by offering both a choice of temporary, and permanent decant. It also made multiple offers of accommodation, and sought to remind the resident throughout her complaint that the offer remained open. This is evidence that, due to the seriousness of the situation, the landlord made more than 1 offer of accommodation.
It is apparent the resident was unwilling accept a decant, or to allow the landlord access to complete the repairs. The evidence indicates this was because the landlord was not prepared to agree to her request for the surveyor from 2017 to oversee the repairs. The landlord set out its position in relation to this particular matter on several occasions. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about its reasons, and that it had the appropriate resource within its staff to oversee the works. The landlord’s approach to this issue was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Despite its refusal to allow the surveyor to oversee the repairs, the landlord offered the resident to choose a contractor from its approved list. This is evidence that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and sought to give her some ownership over the process. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to build trust with the resident.
The evidence indicates that throughout the matter remaining outstanding the landlord wanted to conduct works, and repeatedly asked the resident to allow it access. However, given the concerns raised about hazards in 2017, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more proactive in seeking to meet its repair obligations. The landlord warned the resident that it may explore legal action in order to get access, in November 2021, and again in January 2023. It does not appear the landlord acted on these warnings.
The evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the landlord went to court and obtained an injunction, in September 2023, to get access to do gas safety testing. Given its concern about the overall condition of the property, and its repair obligations, it is unclear why it did not take such action in relation to the repairs.
In her correspondence with the landlord, the resident described herself as vulnerable on multiple occasions. That the landlord did not record the resident as vulnerable on its systems was a failure to adhere to its vulnerable residents policy, and a record keeping failing. Had the landlord correctly recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have enabled its staff to tailor its service to the resident’s needs.
This failing can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to its overall handling of the repairs issue. Its officers were not appropriately aware of the resident’s self reported vulnerabilities when providing her with a service. Had its staff been aware of her vulnerability it would have enabled them to provide the resident with a tailored service to support her needs and build trust with her.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights found that poor record keeping around a resident’s vulnerability impacted on a landlord’s ability to provide an effective service to them. Considering the landlord’s failings in this regard, an appropriate series of orders are made below.
The resident has evidently experienced a detriment as a result of living in a property where significant repairs are needed. However, the landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the entire detriment suffered by the resident, as the delay in completing the repairs is somewhat outside of its control.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered the resident £200 in compensation for the time and trouble she experienced in contacting it about the repairs issues. The landlord’s complaint response did not set out what learning it had done about its admitted failing, resulting in an offer of compensation. This, added to the inconvenience caused by its poor record keeping about the resident’s vulnerability, mean the redress it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
That repairs were needed is not disputed, and the landlord showed a genuine desire to complete them. The landlord appropriately went beyond its decant policy in order to try and facilitate a move, and progress the repairs. Its decision to deny the resident’s request for the surveyor to oversee the repairs was reasonable. It offered a reasonable alternative of allowing the resident to choose the contractor, which was fair, and sought to build trust.
The landlord did adopt a multi agency approach with the local authority, and the resident’s local councillor, to progress matters. Given the condition of the property, the landlord can reasonably have been expected to be more proactive in exploring all avenues to gain access and complete the repairs. Appropriate recognition of the resident’s vulnerability, and an adjustment of its service, accordingly, would have assisted it in this.

ASB

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
On receipt of the resident’s reports of ASB in October 2021, the landlord appropriately opened an ASB case. It promptly sought to complete a risk assessment and interview the resident about her concerns. This was in line with its ASB policy and reasonable in the circumstances.
As part of its ASB case, the landlord gave the resident advice on how to install the ‘noise app’ for her ASB case. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it sought to support the resident with gathering evidence to support her case.
The evidence indicates that the resident did not respond to the landlord’s requests for contact about the ASB case, and did not engage with its efforts to complete a risk assessment. In line with its policy the landlord decided to close the ASB case, and wrote to the resident explaining why. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as a landlord needs evidence in order to progress with an ASB case. Its decision to close the case at that time was an appropriate application of its ASB policy. That it provided a number for the resident to revisit the case, or raise further concerns was supportive, and evidence it took her concerns seriously.
The landlord’s complaint responses were inappropriate in its assessment of the ASB case. The complaint responses appear to conflate the ASB reported and the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the building. It is noted that the resident reported a concern about her neighbour dumping rubbish, and cited a fire risk. However, she also reported that her neighbour had harassed her and “hurled abuse” at her. The landlord’s silence on this in its complaint responses was inappropriate.
It is noted that the resident did not engage with the landlord’s investigations into her concerns about ASB, and it was reasonable to close the case. However, that it did not use its complaint response to set out its position in relation to the ASB case more widely, was a shortcoming in its handling of the issue. Particularly as the resident had raised concerns about its handling of her ASB case. That it inappropriately conflated it with the fire safety concerns, despite the resident reporting verbal abuse and harassment caused her an inconvenience. As such, an appropriate series of orders are made below.

Fire Safety

The resident reported concerns about her neighbour dumping rubbish causing a fire safety hazard in October 2021. The landlord appropriately discussed this with the neighbour at the time, and advised the resident it had reminded them of their tenancy obligations. This was an appropriate response, and the evidence indicates there was not a recurrence of the issue.
It is apparent that the resident did have further concerns about her neighbour leaving belongings in the communal hallway, and the fire hazard this presented. The tone of the landlord’s email response, in March 2022, was inappropriate and dismissive. Simply stating it would await a report from the fire brigade was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. As it had done before, it would have been appropriate for the landlord address the concerns with her neighbour. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter, which was evidently frustrating for the resident. She was cost further time and trouble in needing to raise these concerns at a later date.
The evidence shows that the landlord put up a sign to remind residents not to leave items in the communal hallway, and advised such items may be removed. It is not possible to determine when the sign was put up. However, it is reasonable to conclude this was in response to the resident’s concerns, and was an appropriate next step to take.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response addressed the resident’s ongoing concerns about fire safety in the building, and said it had referred her concerns to the relevant team. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence that it took her concerns about fire safety seriously. It is evident that the fire safety team did not contact the resident to discuss her concerns, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience of the landlord not doing something it said it would in response to her concerns.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the above failing. It offered the resident £120 for time and trouble, which was reasonable, and an appropriate application of its compensation policy. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response showed it had learnt from the outcomes of the case, and said it briefed the relevant managers, and instructed them to complete training with their staff. This was an appropriate approach, given the admitted failings.
The evidence seen for this investigation shows the landlord completed a fire risk assessment at the resident’s building in July 2023. This was within 3 years of its last inspection, and in line with the timeframes set out in its fire safety policy.
The landlord appropriately reminded neighbours of the fire safety hazard caused by dumping rubbish. Its response of March 2022 was dismissive and the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to raise concerns again. The landlord accepted a failing in its handling of the matter, made an appropriate offer of compensation, and showed learning.

Complaint Handling

On receipt of a request sent by this Service, in September 2022, the landlord opened a complaint investigation, which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the stage 1 complaint which was a failing in its complaint handling.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint must be acknowledged within 5 workings days of receipt. It also states the acknowledgment must set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint. The lack of complaint acknowledgment caused the resident an inconvenience. She did not know if the landlord had the correct understanding of her complaint, or when it intended to respond by.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 20 working days after we asked it to open a complaint. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, and a further failing in its complaint handling. It is noted that this was not a lengthy delay, but that it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response was inappropriate. The resident experienced further inconvenience of a protracted complaint process.
As at stage 1, the landlord appropriately opened a stage 2 complaint when asked to by this Service. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgement was inappropriate, and not in line with its policy and the Code. The landlord stated it could not say when it would send its response, and gave no indicative timeframe. This was unreasonable and caused the resident a further inconvenience of a protracted complaints process.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the delay throughout the stage 2 complaint, in line with its policy. Given the length of the delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with periodic updates about the delay. It could have used those responses to set out when it hoped to respond by. That it did not, was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident was caused an inconvenience of not knowing when, or if, the landlord would issue its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 62 working days after it was made. This was an unreasonable delay. It appropriately apologised for the complaint handling delays, and gave some explanation of the reasons. However, its response lacked appropriate learning about what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. It also failed to acknowledge the delay at stage 1, or its lack of proactive updates about the delays at stage 2. As such, the £100 it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.
In July 2023, the Housing Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord, which identified a “disconnect between policy and practice” in its complaint handling. In response to the publication of the special report, the landlord completed training with its complaint handling staff. The aim of this was to ensure “more empathetic complaint responses” and to “act on learning from complaints”. Therefore, this report has not made an order for the landlord’s complaint handling practice, as it has already actioned what would have been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

That repairs were needed is not disputed, and the landlord showed a genuine desire to complete them. The landlord appropriately went beyond its decant policy in order to try and facilitate a move, and progress the repairs. Its decision to deny the resident’s request for the surveyor to oversee the repairs was reasonable. It offered a reasonable alternative of allowing the resident to choose the contractor, which was fair and sought to build trust. Given the condition of the property, the landlord can reasonably have been expected to be more proactive in exploring all avenues to gain access and complete the repairs. Appropriate recognition of the resident’s vulnerability, and an adjustment of its service, accordingly, would have assisted it in this.
The resident did not engage with the landlord’s investigations into her concerns about ASB, and it was reasonable to close the case. The landlord’s complaint responses were inappropriate in its assessment of the ASB case, and did not address its handling of the overall case.
The landlord appropriately reminded neighbours of the fire safety hazard caused by dumping rubbish. Its response of March 2022 was dismissive and the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to raise concerns again. The landlord accepted a failing in its handling of the matter, made an appropriate offer of compensation, and showed learning.
The resident experienced a protracted complaints process. The landlord failed to apologise for, or acknowledge the delays in it stage 1 response. There was a lengthy delay at stage 2, and the landlord apologised and offered some redress, which went some way to putting things right. It failed to acknowledge the delay at stage 1, show appropriate learning, or acknowledge the lack of proactive updates about the delay at stage 2.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £720 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £200 it offered for time and effort (if has not already done so).
  2. The £120 it offered for its handling of the fire safety issue (if it has not already done so).
  3. The £100 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
  4. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  5. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB case.
  6. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Update its records to appropriately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs. An appropriately qualified person must conduct the review to help identify appropriate next steps. It must create an action plan of how it will meet its repair obligations, and engage with the resident on the outstanding repairs.