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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202339619)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339619

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The installation of fiber-optic cables.
    2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of the complaint about a noisy boiler and the loss of heating and hot water.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a three-bedroom property. The resident has said that her son has a life-threatening condition which he receives treatment for. We have not been given information about the nature of that condition. The resident has said this same son also has severe eczema and needs regular baths. The landlord noted in 2019 that one of the resident’s children had unspecified vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported noise coming from her boiler since March or August 2022. She reported the noise again and being without heating in September 2023.
  3. On 27 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that:
    1. despite her calling on 25 October 2023 and the landlord initially offering a 24-hour appointment no one attended on 26 October 2023
    2. its contractor refused to attend on 26 October 2023 but offered her an appointment for either 29 October 2023 or 31 October 2023
    3. she felt the contractor had told her off and penalised her for switching her boiler off.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 dated 7 November 2023 said:
    1. its contractor missed the appointment for 26 October 2023 because of an error on the contractor’s side
    2. an engineer inspected the flue and ‘condense’ on 27 October 2023 and found no fault
    3. its contractor agreed to offer the resident £90 compensation and the landlord offered £50 as a good will gesture.
  5. On 13 November 2023 the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm went off. The resident called the national gas emergency service who sent an engineer. The engineer detected carbon monoxide in the property and capped the gas supply for safety reasons.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2023. The landlord sent a gas engineer on 15 November 2023. The landlord’s engineer discovered that the carbon monoxide came from the resident’s cooker. The landlord capped the resident’s gas again for safety. This meant she was without some heating and gas. The landlord’s contractor provided the resident with two fan heaters on 19 November 2023.
  7. On 10 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about:
    1. not having heating for several days in October 2023 and again on 13 November 2023
    2. missed appointments on
      1. 29 September 2023
      2. 14 October 2023
      3. 26 October 2023
      4. 17 November 2023
      5. 20 November 2023
    3. contractors attending appointments early on 9 October 2023 and 15 November 2023
    4. a contractor attending on 27 November 2023 but being unable to do anything and not arranging a follow up appointment
    5. contractors digging up her garden in November and December 2023 to lay fiber-optic cables without her consent, causing damage and mess
    6. not having adequate heating or hot water for 30 days (since 13 November 2023)
    7. the impact of the cold on the health of the household and her son being unable to have regular baths
    8. the stress and additional electricity costs as well as not being able to cook.
  8. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 January 2024 and restored the gas supply to the resident’s property.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to explain that her boiler was still making a noise and that she had not received a stage 2 response. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 18 March 2024.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 March 2024 and said:
    1. the landlord raised a priority appointment on 25 October 2023 for its gas contractor to attend
    2. the resident called its contractor to move the appointment to 26 October 2023 but as the resident had switched the boiler off, the contractor did not deem there was an emergency as the resident had made the boiler safe
    3. the contractor failed to effectively communicate why the emergency appointment for 26 October 2023, was no longer appropriate
    4. instead, the contractor offered the resident an appointment for 31 October 2023 and then one for 29 October 2023
    5. it reviewed the conversation between its contractor and the resident and felt that, although the contractor had not ‘told her off’, it should have sent someone on 26 October 2023
    6. its contractor should have attended within 24 hours to allow an engineer to assess the situation and arrange any repair works needed
    7. on 26 October 2023 the resident decided to call the landlord directly to obtain an appointment. Although it raised this, no one attended because of an error at the contractor’s side
    8. it arranged an appointment for 27 October 2023
    9. the engineer that attended on 27 October 2023 fixed the error code, restarted the boiler and found no fault with the flue or ‘condense’
    10. it did not send the stage 1 response on 7 November 2023 because of a technical fault, it sent this on 13 November 2023
    11. the emergency gas services engineer attended on 13 November 2023 and capped the gas after it detected carbon monoxide
    12. its out of hours service arranged for its contractor to attend
    13. it was sorry its contractor, that attended on 15 November 2023, attended early and that the resident had to locate them in the carpark. This was a service failure
    14. its contractor identified that the resident’s cooker was the source of the carbon monoxide on 15 November 2023, and it capped the gas again
    15. it noted the resident’s account that its contractor did not attend on 17 November 2023 along with an engineer from the emergency gas service 
    16. the contractor that attended on 27 November 2023 was unable to resolve the issues and left the resident with the expectation someone would attend the property the following day
    17. it noted the resident experienced long delays in getting through to it on the telephone 30 October 2023, on 30 November 2023 and 6 December 2023
    18. it apologised for the delays in connection and said it would be recruiting more staff to deal with calls
    19. it noted that the resident’s account that the contractor that attended on 29 December 2023 left without the resident hearing them knock
    20. a contractor attended on 5 January 2024 and confirmed everything was working which the resident’s housing assistant also confirmed
    21. it acknowledged that the resident told it on 2 February 2024 that there were still problems and so it arranged for its contractor to attend on 22 March 2024
    22. it was sorry to hear that household members had become sick but explained that residents can make sickness claims through a household contents policy or through their insurance if the resident feels the landlord is responsible
    23. its contractor offered £220 for the missed appointments and the landlord awarded compensation of £1,628.24 made up of:
      1. £98 for no hot water
      2. £98 for no heating
      3. £70 for loss of a cooker
      4. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the household vulnerabilities
      5. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble
      6. £300 for complaint handling
      7. £20 for a missed appointment
      8. £220 for the use of fan heaters
      9. £122.24 to cover the cost of meals the resident needed to order without a cooker
    24. as the resident was in arrears of £1,356.20 it would offset the compensation against this and pay the resident the balance of £272.04
    25. it apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 because of the backlog and said it should not have promised the resident a response by 11 December 2023
    26. the resident’s complaint about the fiber-optic cables was a separate issue that it needed to investigate separately and so this was outside this complaint response. 
  11. The resident told the landlord on 14 June 2024 that the compensation only covered the period until 25 March 2024 and the issues with a boiler noise continued until 2 May 2024. The resident also disclosed that her heating and hot water stopped again on 11 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What complaints we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint–handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

  1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and in accordance with the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s complaint about the fibre optic cables. This is because this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident pursued the complaint.

The scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman was set up to investigate maladministration based on the documentary evidence provided by the parties. Where an individual explains they have been injured or harmed by the landlord’s actions or inactions, that is often better dealt with as a personal injury claim. This is because in these types of claims, an independent medical expert would usually be appointed to report on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any illness or injury. The expert’s duty would be to the court to ensure impartiality – even before legal proceedings are issued. These are usually called medico-legal reports. Where there is a dispute over the cause of the injury, the courts would then test the evidence and this could include oral testimony or the evidence from other experts. For these reasons, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim via the courts. The resident is entitled to seek legal advice on their prospects of successfully making a claim. In summary, the Ombudsman has not investigated how any injury or illness was caused in this report. We have, however, considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and considered whether this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The resident has said that she had experienced noise from her boiler since March 2022 however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she complained about this before 25 September 2023. This investigation will therefore deal with the landlord’s handling of the issue from this point.

The landlord’s handling of the boiler noise and loss of heating and hot water

  1. The resident reported that her boiler was making a lot of noise and that she had no heating on 25 September 2023. The landlord was responsible for the boiler and heating system under the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs policy.
  2. It ought to have arranged a 24-hour appointment in line with its emergency response time in its repair policy. This is because the noise coming from a boiler could have been dangerous. The evidence showed that the landlord made an appointment for 29 September 2023. The resident stated that its contractor cancelled this and failed to re-arrange this until 9 October 2023.
  3. The resident’s account is that she agreed with the contractor that the engineer would arrive after 3pm on 9 October 2023 but he arrived at 2.45pm and would not wait. The landlord arranged another appointment for 10 October 2023.
  4. The resident’s evidence is that the engineer that attended on 10 October 2023 could not resolve the problem with the boiler making a noise and the loss of heating. The resident explained that the landlord’s contractor cleaned a component on 10 October 2023 to stop the boiler noise, but this did not work. The landlord’s account is that although the thermostat was not working, the resident had heating and hot water. It is unclear what action the landlord took to resolve the thermostat or boiler noise.
  5. The resident stated that the landlord’s contractor missed another appointment on 14 October 2023. The resident stated that a contractor eventually restored heating on 15 October 2023.
  6. The landlord has not disputed that there was a missed appointment on 9 October 2023 or 14 October 2023.
  7. The landlord has not provided repair records for this period but disputed that the resident was without heating and hot water from 25 September 2023 to 15 October 2023. This is because when it visited on 10 October 2023 it said the resident had heating and hot water. The landlord’s contractor also said following its visit on 15 October 2023 that the reason why the resident was without heating or hot water was because she had switched the boiler off and there was no disrepair. The landlord therefore resolved this by switching it back on. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to satisfy itself on the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions or to conclusively determine to what extent the resident was without heating or hot water due to the poor record keeping.
  8. The resident reported on 25 October 2023 that her boiler was making a loud noise that sounded like a “foghorn”. The landlord made an emergency appointment which was appropriate as the noise could have presented a danger.
  9. The resident contacted the contractor directly to move the appointment to the next day after she switched her boiler off. This led to the contractor telling the resident there was no longer an emergency, but it could offer an appointment on either 29 October 2023 or 31 October 2023. The contractor then told the resident that she could switch the boiler back on if she needed heat or hot water.
  10. The landlord accepted at stage 2 that this was inappropriate. This was because the contractor ought to have attended to assess the safety of the boiler. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord attempted to arrange another appointment for 26 October 2023 to put things right. This appointment did not go ahead because of an error with its contractor. The landlord’s contractor attended on 27 October 2023 instead and was able to resolve the boiler fault and restart the boiler. It found no fault with the flue or ‘condense’ according to the landlord’s account and the resident has not disputed this. It is unclear what part of the boiler the ‘condense’ relates to from the available evidence.
  11. The landlord’s non-attendance on 26 October 2023 was a service failure but the landlord took appropriate action to get an engineer out the next day. The resident experienced some inconvenience by the delay in the appointment, but the delay was short lived and there is no evidence of any significant detriment.
  12. The resident called the emergency gas service to attend on 13 November 2023 after her carbon monoxide detector went off. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 November 2023. This was reasonable as the emergency gas service had already attended on 13 November 2023 to assess the safety of the property. The emergency gas service had capped the resident’s gas supply after finding carbon monoxide present.
  13. The landlord has provided a warning notice following the appointment on 15 November 2023. It is evident from this that the landlord’s contractor concluded that the resident’s cooker had caused the carbon monoxide leak and that it capped the gas to leave the property safe. The Ombudsman considers that this was appropriate to ensure the resident’s safety from gas poisoning. The resident’s evidence is that the contractor who attended believed the reason for the boiler noise was that it was letting air in.
  14. The resident told the landlord that its contractor had booked an appointment for 17 November 2023 and 20 November 2023. The resident’s evidence was that the contractor agreed to attend again on 17 November 2023 with the emergency gas service engineer to reinstate the gas, but this did not happen. The resident stated that a contractor arrived on 20 November 2023 at 2.40pm when it agreed someone would attend after 3pm and that the contractor did not wait or accept her call.
  15. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with details of any repair records for the period between 15 November 2023 to 20 November 2023. The landlord told this service that it could not gain access to the resident’s property on 18 or 20 November 2023. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with photographs taken on these days.
  16. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep accurate and detailed records of appointments. This is to ensure an audit trail and that the landlord can effectively identify and resolve repairs.
  17. The evidence shows that the resident told the landlord on 14 November 2023 that the boiler was still making a noise. The Ombudsman notes too that the resident told the landlord on 24 November 2023 that she had an unspecified ongoing issue.
  18. The resident’s evidence is that the landlord’s contractor made an appointment for 27 November 2023, but that the engineer who attended took no action and no one attended the next day as promised. The landlord’s account is that the resident told the contractor who attended that the emergency services engineer also needed to attend at the same time. The landlord noted that the contractor told the resident that he could not wait for them to attend and rang the office so it could investigate this. The Ombudsman cannot determine what the true state of events were based on the available evidence.
  19. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord ought to have made further inquiries to determine if it needed to take any follow-on action. This is because it was undisputed that the appointment on 27 November 2023 was unsuccessful, and the landlord was aware that the resident had unspecified ongoing issues and a noisy boiler.
  20. The evidence shows the resident told the landlord on 1 December 2023 that she was without gas and the boiler needed fixing. The landlord was aware its contractor had capped the gas after visiting on 15 November 2023. Despite this there is no evidence that the landlord’s contractor attended before 29 December 2023. The resident’s evidence is that the contractor who attempted to attend on 29 December 2023 did not make a reasonable effort to access the property. There is insufficient evidence to conclusively make a finding on this.
  21. What the Ombudsman can establish is that the landlord attended on 5 January 2024 to uncap the gas supply as the landlord accepted this. It told this service that it left the resident with working heating and hot water on 5 January 2024. The available evidence allows the Ombudsman to conclude that the resident was without gas between 13 November 2023 to 5 January 2024.
  22. The delay in attending the resident’s property and the lack of any evidence of the landlord taking any effective action to resolve the lack of gas supply, heating and boiler noise between this period was a serious failure. The evidence shows that the delay was partly down to the landlord being unclear of what work it needed to do or what it was responsible for. This is because the landlord established on 15 November 2023 that the cause of the carbon monoxide leak was the resident’s cooker which it was not responsible for. While the landlord was not responsible for the cooker under her tenancy agreement or its repair policy, it was responsible for the working order of the heating system. This included any appliances relating to the supply or use of gas.
  23. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have considered if it needed to isolate the cooker to allow it to put the gas back on. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord considered this as far back as 1 December 2023, but that it took no action to restore the gas until 5 January 2024. This delay was unacceptable.
  24. The resident told her landlord on 2 February 2024 that her complaint remained unresolved because the landlord had not provided its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported to the landlord that she still had problems with a boiler noise after 5 January 2024.
  25. In fact, the evidence shows that the landlord was not aware that the boiler noise issue remained until 18 March 2024 when the Ombudsman told the landlord this. This was after the resident passed this information onto the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 20 March 2024 to explain that it could not make contact. The landlord also said it tried to telephone the resident on 21 March 2024 and visit her again on 22 March 2024.
  26. The landlord said it attempted to contact the resident on 2 April 2024 to make an appointment and had still been unable to make contact. It was not until 4 April 2024 that the landlord was able to gain access. The landlord reported that it found on 4 April 2024 that the boiler’s gas rate failed, and it recommended a new burner. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 11 April 2024 and fitted a burner to stop the noise. It also decided to replace the gas valve on 12 April 2024 after the resident reported the burner did not resolve the noise. These actions, that the resident does not dispute, demonstrated that the landlord took reasonable actions to resolve the noisy boiler on becoming aware of the continuing problem.
  27. The landlord’s evidence is that it was unable to make contact with the resident on 18 April 2024 and 25 April 2024. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of what attempts the landlord’s contractor made to contact the resident. However, equally there is no evidence that contradicts the landlord’s account. The resident has confirmed that the landlord resolved the boiler noise issue on 2 May 2024.
  28. On the available evidence it is not possible for the Ombudsman to make a finding of who was responsible for the lack of action during March and April 2024. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord, on the available evidence, made reasonable attempts to make contact with the resident to solve the boiler noise issues once it became aware that this was a continuing problem.

Summary

  1. In summary the Ombudsman has found the following:
    1. the resident stated she was without heating on 25 September 2023
    2. the landlord’s account is that the resident had heating and hot water on 10 October 2023 and that it switched her boiler back on when it attended again on 15 October 2023
    3. it is not possible to be satisfied the landlord’s action to resolve the boiler noise on 10 October 2023 was reasonable, this is because of the absence of a detailed repair record  
    4. that while it was a failure not to attend on 26 October 2023 the landlord arranged an appointment appropriately the next day to minimise the impact on the resident
    5. based on the available evidence this service is unable to verify what happened on 15 November 2023 beyond that the landlord’s contractor attended and identified the cooker as the source of the carbon monoxide leak and capped the gas
    6. it is not possible to verify that the landlord agreed to attend on 17 November 2023 or the circumstances surrounding the failed appointment on 20 November 2023 due to a lack of available evidence which was a record keeping failure
    7. this service is unable to verify what happened on 27 November 2023 on the available evidence, but the landlord ought to have made further enquiries to decide if it needed to do any follow-on-action which there is no evidence of
    8. the landlord uncapped the gas on 5 January 2024, but the resident was without gas and had reduced heating between 13 November 2023 to 5 January 2024. This was because the landlord was unclear of who was responsible. This was a serious failure as there was no evidence of the action or steps the landlord took between then to investigate whose responsibility this was or if it needed to isolate the cooker
    9. the landlord resolved the boiler noise issue on 2 May 2024, with a lack of evidence to find who was responsible for the delays in resolving the boiler noise in March and April 2024.

The compensation paid

  1. The resident stated that the impact of the landlord’s failures was that:
    1. she was without a source of heating between 25 September 2023 to 15 October 2023 or between 25 to 27 October 2023 (24 days in total), although this service has been unable to verify this
    2. she was without gas between 13 November 2023 to 5 January 2024 so could not use the cooker or heat the property except by using electrical heaters (54 days)
    3. she was unable to effectively treat her son’s eczema because he needed regular baths and there was not enough warm water
    4. the cold made members of her household unwell
    5. only one person could shower a day from January 2024 because of the lack of hot water
    6. the cold increased her electricity bills and her telephone bill increased because of the number of calls she made
    7. the boiler noise disturbed the resident and neighbours causing her anxiety because of affected neighbours complaining to her about the noise.
  2. The resident also gave an explanation that her son is unwell. She said that the landlord is aware the household has vulnerabilities. She told the Ombudsman he needs to bathe daily due to his skin condition and the landlord’s failures affected this treatment.
  3. Where there have been failings by a landlord the Ombudsman must consider if the resident experienced a detriment because of these and whether, if so, the landlord has done enough to put things right.
  4. The £1,628.24 compensation payment included a payment of £266 for the loss of hot water, heating and a cooker. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord stated that the resident had heating and hot water on 10 October 2023 and 15 October 2023. The available evidence does not allow this service to determine the period the resident had no heating or hot water. However, overall, the resident had reduced heating between 13 November 2023 to 5 January 2024 as the landlord capped the gas.  

The loss of heating

  1. While the landlord offered some heating on 19 November 2023 it was aware on 10 December 2023 the resident found this inadequate. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord considered if a decant was appropriate or that it assessed the habitability of the property or the risk to the resident by the loss of heating or hot water and given the household’s vulnerabilities.
  2. It should have done so to comply with its responsibilities under s.9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. These required the landlord to ensure that the property was habitable and free from hazards to health caused by cold or loss of water supply. The conditions at the property caused significant distress and anxiety to the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman is also mindful that the resident experienced delays in the landlord dealing with the noisy boiler. There is evidence that the landlord’s failure to address the issue in October to November 2023 caused the resident significant distress.
  4. The landlord was aware that one of the resident’s children had vulnerabilities. Despite this the landlord left the resident without gas for 54 days (13 November 2023 to 5 January 2024) unable to use her gas cooker and with reduced heating for this period. Although the landlord offered the resident £400 for distress and inconvenience the Ombudsman is of the opinion that this should have been higher. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to reflect this.

Financial loss

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the compensation offered covered an amount for the use of electrical fan heaters (£220) and the cost of takeaways the resident provided receipts for (£122.24). Although the costs of electricity and takeaways were likely to be more, the landlord invited the resident to provide evidence of additional expenses. The landlord also told the resident it could claim on its insurance for any ill health she felt the landlord had caused.
  2. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord had attempted to reimburse the resident for some of her additional electricity costs and takeaways. The Ombudsman considers it was always open to the resident to provide evidence of additional electricity, food and telephone costs to allow the landlord to reimburse these.
  3. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that it was appropriate of the landlord to direct the resident to an insurance claim for any alleged harm to the resident or her household’s health. This was because this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It was not appropriate, however, that it directed her to her own contents insurer. Contents insurers do not usually cover injury to the policyholder’s health.

Missed appointments

  1. The landlord also paid the resident £20 for a missed appointment but this was in addition to the £220 she had already received from its contractor for the appointment failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident received adequate compensation for the missed appointments.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 staged complaint process. It must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained on 27 October 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response (dated 7 November 2023) on 13 November 2023. It took the landlord 11 working days against a target of 10 working days to provide its response.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 March 2024. It took the landlord 91 working days against a target of 20 working days. This was after the Ombudsman contacted it on 18 March 2024 to request it provide a response. This was a significant service failure which the landlord accepted.
  4. The landlord awarded the resident £600 for its complaint handling failures, including £300 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures.
  5. The Ombudsman considers, having regard to the level of failure, that this redress was reflective of the amount the Ombudsman would award.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme the Ombudsman has not investigated the resident’s complaint about fibre optic cables.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of compensation in connection with a boiler noise repair and loss of heating and hot water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its failures in complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident directly an additional £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in dealing with the boiler noise and reduced heating and hot water
    2. pay the resident additional compensation for increased electricity costs, telephone bills and takeaways on production of the evidence from the resident referred to in the stage 2 response. This is because the landlord said it would consider reimbursement of these on production of evidence
    3. inspect the resident’s property to identify any ongoing problems with the boiler and heating system and to make an appointment to repair these.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.