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

Halton Housing (202302434)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302434

Halton Housing

27 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs to:
      1. The toilet.
      2. The window vents.
      3. The French doors.
    2. Request for the secondary front door to be replaced.
    3. Complaint and the level of redress offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began on 6 August 2007. The property is a 3 bedroom, end of terrace house.
  2. The landlord completed a stock condition survey of the resident’s home on 16 November 2021. This reviewed the condition of all aspects within the resident’s home and recorded the planned replacement date for items such as the kitchen and bathroom. It noted that a new patio door had been fitted in or around November 2021. It showed that the side door to the property was timber. The survey recorded that this was due for replacement in November 2025 and that this was right given the current condition of the door.
  3. On 17 November 2022, a contractor carried out a CCTV survey of the toilet. This was in response to reports from the resident that it was not flushing and removing waste effectively. The contractor recommended works to be carried out noting that the toilet was “currently too low and causing the line to block”.
  4. The landlord’s contact records show that the resident called the landlord on 13 December 2022, 10 January 2023 and 16 January 2023. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about repairs to her home. The landlord has provided a written record of the resident’s complaint which is undated. From the other evidence that is available, it appears the written record is of the resident’s contact on 16 January 2023.
  5. In her complaint the resident said:
    1. On or around 14 December 2022 she had raised a complaint. While she had expected to receive contact from a manager in response to her complaint, no contact had been made. She was unhappy with the level of service. She went on to highlight specific issues with repairs.
    2. She said that the French doors that had been fitted were too small and there was a “big gap” which was allowing a draught into her home. She said that she had been told that expanding foam could be used, but she did not feel that this would resolve the issue. She believed that the doors needed to be removed and investigated further.
    3. “The second door next to the front door is just a basic door”. She said that it was draughty, and the utility room was very cold. This was also allowing smells, including that of cat urine to enter her home. She had been told that silicon could be put around the door but did not want this to be done. She did not think that this would remedy the problem. She asked if the landlord would cover the cost of her gas bills.
    4. The toilet was still not flushing correctly leaving waste in the pan. She was chasing for the works that had been recommended following the inspection in November 2022, having received no response.
    5. She indicated her dissatisfaction and intention to seek legal advice if these issues were not resolved. She said that she expected a response from a senior manager as this was a “higher complaint”.
  6. The landlord provided its formal response on 25 January 2023. It noted the detail of the resident’s complaint and advised that it had investigated the issues raised. It said that it had reviewed its repair records and noted that a joint visit had been carried out on 24 January 2023. This was to carry out an inspection and discuss the complaint with the resident. In response it said that:
    1. having completed the inspection it found that the French doors had been adequately installed and the frame was correctly positioned.
    2. it had spoken with the resident to discuss the works it could do. It proposed to “remove external plastic trim from underneath the plinth to the door plinth, apply insulation and seal this with sand and cement”. Further it would raise an order to realign the doors.
    3. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the proposal. She was requesting that the door frame be removed to reveal cracks that she had photographed when the door had been installed.
    4. an order was to be raised to apply draught proofing to the timber secondary door. It confirmed that the door was scheduled for replacement in the financial year April 2023 to March 2024. Its investment team were to inform her when this was to be done.
    5. It had discussed her request for the new door to be fitted so it was flush with the front of the property. This was to improve insulation to the bedroom above and prevent cats using the open porch as a toilet. It said that it had agreed to do this. It had however set a condition that the resident made good any damage to the internal plastering and decoration which resulted from the doors removal.
    6. It would follow up on the repairs to the toilet following the recommendations it had received. It noted that this would require the removal of paneling behind the toilet. The resident had agreed with this.
    7. It believed it had responded appropriately to her request about the French doors and the secondary door.
    8. It upheld her complaint about the delays in carrying out the repairs to the toilet and apologised for this. It was to follow up with an appointment for these works.
  7. The landlord’s internal correspondence between 26 January and 1 February 2023 confirmed the actions it was taking. Arrangements had been made for both a plumber and a carpenter to attend the resident’s home on 3 March 2023. This was to carry out the works to the toilet. It had further arranged for a bricklayer to attend on 2 May 2023 to repoint under the patio door. This correspondence also captured the repair to replace the window vents which had first been raised on 16 December 2022. The landlord said that this was to be carried out on the 3 March 2023, along with the other repairs. It was noted that these vents were to be ordered.
  8. On 31 January 2023, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. This was specifically in relation to the issues raised at stage 1 around delays in repairs and poor quality works. She also said that she was still waiting for an appointment for the vents to be replaced. The resident said that her complaint had not been resolved and that her home was cold. She asked if the landlord would pay towards her gas bill.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 6 February 2023 and said that it had arranged a complaint’s panel meeting on 27 February 2023. Following this meeting the resident wrote to the landlord enclosing photographs of the French doors. She said that she would not accept “patch up repairs”. She believed that the external render needed to be removed to allow the doors to be correctly fitted.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 March 2023. It confirmed that it had held the complaint review meeting on 27 February 2023 and that the resident had attended to discuss her complaint. It then set out each issue and its response. These were:
    1. The toilet – it acknowledged that the works were outstanding and set out the actions it would take to complete these. It said that the works required the attendance of both a plumber and a carpenter. Co-ordinating this had been difficult. It noted that there had been a failed appointment on 3 March 2023 and apologised for the miscommunication around this. The landlord had arranged a further appointment for 21 March 2023 which had also not gone ahead. It said that the works had been rescheduled for 11 April 2023, in the morning. It asked the resident to let it know if this was not suitable.
    2. The window vents – it noted that a job had been raised. However, there had been some confusion around whether the landlord had ordered the new vents. This work was completed on 14 March 2023.
    3. The secondary door – it recorded the resident’s concerns about cold and bad smells. It said that it had agreed to replace the door as part of its investment programme for the financial year 2023 to 2024. This programme was due to start on 1 April 2023. It said it would contact the resident in due course to make the necessary arrangements and let her know what would be done. It would also offer her support through this process. Further it had agreed to move the door forward. Any internal works required following this would be the resident’s responsibility.
    4. The French doors – it acknowledged the resident’s own concerns. It thanked her for allowing it to carry out an inspection. It said that this had allowed it to get a clearer understanding of the issue. It had raised an order for works to re-foam and repoint the French doors to be carried out on 2 May 2023. Having spoken with the resident on 27 March 2023 she had said she was not happy for this work to go ahead. This appointment had been cancelled. It would carry out works on 11 April 2023 to both realign the patio doors and attend to the toilet.
  11. It did not uphold her complaint. It recognised that there were occasions when its communication had failed. It also said that it had not made its service offer clear.
  12. The resident contacted the Service on 25 April 2023 to further escalate her complaint. In this she set out the reasons for her continued dissatisfaction. She set out her ongoing concerns about the repair issues she had raised with the landlord. She said that she was “annoyed and disgusted” by its comments. She set out her issue on each point as follows:
    1. The toilet – the landlord had, on 3 occasions, sent workmen without confirmation of the appointment. As she did not know they were coming she did not allow access. She said that it was not a simple job and she needed to be notified to “move things”. The last appointment on 11 April 2023 had passed and no one had attended.
    2. The window vents – an appointment had been confirmed for 23 February 2023, but no one had attended. She was told that the vents had not been ordered. She had an appointment arranged for 3 March 2023 which she had to cancel, but the contractor still attended. It then only measured for the vents. She was very upset by this.  
    3. The secondary door – at the stage 2 meeting the landlord had “promised the world”. It said that it would brick up the space and put a window in. She was fed up with the smells and found the room difficult to heat. She wanted a date for the works to be done. She said that she should not have to live with this.
    4. The French doors – these were too small and allowing draughts into her home. She said that she would not allow the landlord to carry out a “botch job”. She wanted the external render to be removed to show how badly fitted the doors were. She also said that water was getting in through the cracked render. She said she felt that she was going round in circles.
    5. Her complaint – she did not feel that the landlord had dealt with her complaint satisfactorily. There had been no apology. She said that she felt the landlord’s “letter [was] an absolute insult and very degrading saying they will take this opportunity to learn from this and set expectations”.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord’s director of homes wrote to the resident on 30 January 2024. This followed a joint visit to the resident’s home with the landlord’s chief executive. The records for the visit note that the resident had raised her complaint with the Service. The landlord wanted to resolve her outstanding repair concerns. It noted follow on works related to her toilet and the issues relating to the French doors. The landlord further identified an issue with her rear kitchen door which it would address. The landlord asked the resident to confirm that she was happy for the work it proposed to go ahead and for her to provide it with a suitable date for these to be done. It recorded her dissatisfaction with 2 staff members which it agreed it would investigate.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of both the landlord and the tenant. It includes details of the landlord’s repairing responsibilities. It also says at clause 3.22.1 that the resident must allow access to the landlord and its contractors to carry out inspections or repairs to the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its aim to provide a reliable and accessible repairs service, taking account of its customers needs. It will ensure that it meets its legal and contractual obligations and delivers value for money. It sets out its responsibilities for repairs and the categories it uses to define the timescale within which it will undertake repairs. These are emergency, urgent repairs, non emergency repairs and planned works. It sets a target of 20 working days for non emergency repairs. It says that it will offer appointments for repairs through agreement with the resident. It will then send a reminder via text message the day before the repair is due. The policy says that the landlord will cancel repair orders where a resident refuses access on 2 separate occasions.
  3. The landlord has an asset management and planned investment policy. This says that the landlord will ensure that it has accurate stock condition information for its homes. It will ensure that as a minimum all its homes will meet the decent homes standard.
  4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  5. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. This sets a target of 10 working days to respond to complaints at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The person who handles a complaint at stage 2 will be different from the person who responded to the complaint at stage 1. Point 9.8 references a complaint review meeting. This says that “notification of any complaint review meetings will be made within ten working days of the escalation to stage 2”. It adds that the landlord will give residents at least 10 working days’ notice of the date, time and venue of the meeting. It says every attempt will be made to meet the resident’s preferences in setting these dates. It is not clear from the policy in what circumstances the landlord will set up a complaint review meeting.

Scope of investigation.

  1. In correspondence with the Service the resident had advised that the issues with her toilet have been ongoing since 2020. The resident’s comments are not disputed, and it is acknowledged that the longstanding nature of the issue will have been the cause of frustration. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 6 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. As such this investigation has focused on the complaint raised by the resident in late 2022/early 2023 and the repair requests made in the months preceding it.
  2. Whilst the detail of the landlord’s communication with the resident dated 30 January 2024 are included for the context it provides, the issues contained within it are not part of this investigation.

Repairs to the toilet.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2022. She reported that the toilet was not flushing properly and that waste was coming back up into the bowl. The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor attended on 17 October 2022 and it recorded that the repair was completed on that date. The record does not show what works were carried out or if there were any outstanding issues. The plumber attended within 10 working days of the resident’s report of the issue with her toilet, this is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy to attend non emergency repairs within 20 working days, at a date and time agreed with the resident.
  2. Following further reports of an issue from the resident, the landlord arranged for the toilet to be ‘jetted’ on 31 October and 14 November 2022. This was reasonable. This was followed up with a CCTV survey carried out on 17 November 2022. The report that followed this inspection recommended specific work be carried out to remedy the issue. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that it raised the necessary follow on works order. It is unclear why the follow on works were not ordered. However, that they were not, was a failing.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022, and it recorded her formal complaint on 16 January 2023. As an outcome within its complaint response the landlord said that it would raise the required follow on works. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in following up this repair and appropriately offered an apology to the resident. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay and this was a failing in its response. However, it is noted that it made an appointment for a plumber and a carpenter to attend on 3 March 2023.
  4. The resident has said that she contacted the landlord to cancel this appointment as she had a short notice hospital appointment. The contractors still attended and the resident refused access. This was not unreasonable in the circumstances. She had notified the landlord in advance that she would not be available and it should have taken appropriate steps to cancel the appointment. That it did not do so was inappropriate and caused unnecessary stress to the resident.
  5. A new appointment was arranged for 21 March 2023. It is however unclear how this was communicated to the resident. The landlord should reasonably have kept a record of such communication. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will notify residents of an appointment and provide a reminder by text message the day before the repair is due. The resident said that as the landlord did not give her notice of the appointment, she refused access. She said that the work was extensive and that she needed notice to enable her to move things within her home. While the resident is obliged to provide access with reasonable notice, her reason for declining access on this occasion is understood. That the landlord did not notify the resident of the appointment or provided the necessary reminder was a failing.
  6. Through its stage 2 response the landlord advised of a further appointment set for 11 April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord’s maintenance team attended on this date. While the landlord’s repair records are not specific, the works order for the resident’s toilet was then cancelled. This is in line with its repairs policy, which says that it will cancel repair orders where access is not allowed on 2 occasions. However, in the circumstances of the case this was inappropriate.
  7. The Service notes that there were missed appointments. The landlord has recorded the resident’s refusal to provide access to her home. This is in contrast to this the resident’s statement that she had notified the landlord of her unavailability or been notified of the second appointment. It is important that there is clear communication between residents and landlords to ensure that repair works are progressed effectively. Where appointments have been arranged with a resident, there should be a clear point of contact if the appointment is no longer convenient. The landlord must also ensure that it provides reasonable notice of a least 24 hours of any appointments that it has set. This is in line with its own policy.
  8. There was a significant delay in the landlord progressing the works recommended by its contractor to address the issue with the resident’s toilet. It did not raise these within a reasonable time, and it necessitated a complaint from the resident for it to do so. It appropriately acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 complaint response but did not consider the impact on the resident of this delay. It made no offer of compensation. Its decision to then cancel the works order led to further, avoidable delays.
  9. On 2 August 2023 the landlord raised an order to “remove toilet, renew soil stack or section of soil stack so toilet is higher than soil stack outlet”. This followed contact from the resident and an internal email exchange between the landlord’s staff on 24 July 2023 about outstanding repairs to the resident’s home. These works and the associated external works were completed by the landlord on 21 September 2023. This was 10 months after the outcome of the CCTV survey. This was outside the timescales set for such works within its repairs policy.
  10. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its progressing these repairs both at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process, it failed to ensure that these were then completed. There were further unexplained delays which left the resident having to pursue these works with the landlord. This amounts to maladministration. In line with the Service’s guidance on remedies an order has been made that the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £300 for these delays and the miscommunication around appointments.
  11. The resident confirmed that the works to her toilet were completed. She has however reported further repairs related to the works carried out. These were discussed at a visit to her home by senior staff of the landlord and followed up through in its letter to her dated 30 January 2024. If these issues remain unresolved the resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. 

Repairs to the window vents.

  1. The resident first raised an issue with window vents to the landlord on 13 December 2022. Its contractor attended, in accordance with the landlord’s policy timescales, on 16 December 2022 and said that new vents needed to be ordered. The landlord’s repair records do not show that the this was followed through, and the required parts ordered. While this item was not included within the resident stage 1 complaint, she highlighted that it was outstanding when she contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s internal communications note that this was scheduled for 3 March 2023. Its contractor attended and measured up for the vents. It then returned on 14 March 2023 to complete the works.
  2. The landlord responded to this issue at stage 2 of its complaint process. While it confirmed that the repair had been completed, it acknowledged that there had been confusion about ordering of the required vents. This lack of clarity led to unnecessary attendance by its contractors at the resident’s home to measure the vents for a second time. This undoubtably led to frustration and unnecessary disturbance for the resident. The landlord therefore failed to complete the repairs within its target of 20 working days. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered an award of compensation for this delay during the course of the complaints procedure. The landlord failed to do so and we have therefore found there was service failure. Accordingly, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in acknowledgement of the delay and the unnecessary attendance of its contractors.

The French doors.

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that new French doors were installed at the resident’s home on 7 July 2020. This date is not however expressed in the stock condition survey which estimates that the new doors were installed on 15 November 2021. The Ombudsman cannot reconcile the difference here from the evidence that is available. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the work and highlighted this to the landlord. It raised a repair order on 13 December 2022 and the resident further highlighted her concerns in her formal complaint. She said that she had been told that expanding foam could be used to fill the gaps, but she was unhappy with this solution. The landlord carried out an inspection on 24 January 2024 and set out its findings in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The landlord had discussed its proposed works with the resident, but she disagreed with its planned action. She said she wanted the doors removed and replaced. The landlord raised orders to repoint underneath the door and for the doors to be realigned. The resident further raised her concerns about the French doors and the draughts that these were allowing into her home as part of her escalated complaint. The landlord discussed this with her at the complaint review panel, she provided photographs of her concerns and the landlord carried out another inspection. While it understood that she was unhappy with its proposals it had raised orders for repointing and the realignment of the doors. The resident declined these works. In raising her complaint with the Service, she said that she wanted the external render and doors removed.
  3. It is noted that the landlord raised the suggested repairs to the French doors but that these were subsequently cancelled as the resident did not wish these to progress. While the Service is sympathetic to the resident’s position, the landlord is entitled to rely on the advice of its surveyors in proposing works to address concerns in its homes. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is for the landlord to determine how it meets this this obligation and the scope of any repairs that it is to undertake. Further, it is appropriate for the landlord to consider costs and to ensure that it undertakes the most appropriate and cost effective solution. This is in line with its repairs policy to ensure value for money in the works it undertakes.
  4. The resident is obliged under the tenancy agreement to provide reasonable access, and it is therefore important that she cooperates with the landlord to ensure that the works can be completed. It is recommended that the landlord should carry out these works (if it has not already done so) and the resident should provide access in line with her tenancy agreement.

Request for the secondary front door to be replaced.

  1. The resident reported issues with the secondary door at the front of her property through her complaint. This focused on the inadequacy of the wooden door, causing draughts in her home and allowing unpleasant smells. In assessing the door, the landlord appropriately proposed providing draught excluders as a temporary measure. It checked the position with its investment programme and through its complaint responses confirmed that it would bring forward these works to the 2023 to 2024 financial year. This replacement had also been highlighted through the stock condition survey.
  2. It considered the resident’s request to bring forward the door to enclose the open porch area at the side of her house. She had highlighted an issue with this area being used as a cat toilet and the landlord noted that to enclose the area would improve insulation to the upstairs bedroom. As these were improvement works it was right that the landlord considered these in line with its planned works programme. The door was scheduled to be replaced in 2025 as set out in the stock condition survey. In bringing this forward it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns. We have therefore found no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint. The landlord completed the work on 13 December 2023.

Complaint and the level of redress.

  1. When investigating a case, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. In considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, there was a lack of clarity as to when the resident first raised her complaint. The record capturing the details of her complaint is undated. The landlord responded on 25 January 2023. This was within the stated 10 working day target. However, had the resident first submitted her complaint on 14 December 2022, the response would have been significantly overdue. Its response appropriately dealt with each of the issues that the resident had raised. It acknowledged that she did not agree with its proposal for the works to the patio door but said that a repair order would be raised. It confirmed that it had brought forward the works to the secondary door and that it would meet the resident’s requested that this be repositioned. It acknowledged the delays in resolving the issues with the toilet and upheld this element of her complaint. The landlord’s response was fair in its approach, setting out clearly the actions it would take to address the resident’s concerns.
  3. Given the acknowledged delays in following up the proposed works to the resident’s toilet, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered compensation at this stage. That it did not do so, alongside the perceived delay in its response was a failing.
  4. On receiving her request to escalate the complaint on 31 January 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it within 4 working days. It then arranged a review panel meeting within 15 days, for 27 February 2023. While the landlord’s policy included a provision for a panel meeting it is unclear as to the circumstances in which one would be arranged. The landlord has not shared notes of this meeting with the Service. The resident attended the panel and subsequently shared photographs of her concerns. A further inspection of her property was also carried out. These were clear opportunities for the landlord to discuss with the resident the scope of its proposed works to the patio doors and to reach agreement with her to progress these. It was also an opportunity for it to set out both its obligations and those of the resident in relation to repairs. This appears to have been a missed opportunity to do so.
  5. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 21 March 2023. It is unclear why this took a further 16 working days. In this is set out the actions that it would take to deal with the repair issues that the resident had raised. It had not however found a solution to the patio doors that was acceptable to the resident and said that it had raised and cancelled some of the works it had intended to do. The letter states that it had contacted the resident on 27 March 2023. As this is after the date of the letter it is unclear when the contact was made. It is important that complaints provide accurate details and timelines.
  6. The landlord’s complaint handling was protracted. The inclusion of the complaint review panel extended the timeframe for its response at stage 2 and did not find a solution that was acceptable to the resident. Furthermore, it has accepted her refusal to allow works to proceed. This is an unsatisfactory position for both parties, leaving the resident’s complaint unresolved.
  7. Having included the additional step of the review panel this could have been used to positively discuss the resident’s concerns and explained to her the landlord’s obligations and the outcomes it expected to achieve by the works that it proposed. It was also a point at which to discuss her expected outcome and the any financial redress. That it did not do so, alongside the extended time frame of her complaint was maladministration. This left the resident dissatisfied and frustrated. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that “a process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”. The landlord’s process in this case was not compliant with the Code. It is noted that the landlord has since reviewed its complaint handling policy, removing the reference to a review panel. As such, no orders have been made in relation to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the toilet.
  2. 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 to the window vents.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the French doors.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the secondary door.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord must provide an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation, calculated as follows:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay and miscommunication around the repairs to the toilet.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays around the replacement of the window vents.
      3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should carry out the works to the French doors as it proposed to address the concerns around draughts (if it has not already done so). The resident should provide access in line with her tenancy agreement.