Home Group Limited (202230408)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230408

Home Group Limited

29 May 2025

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 response to the resident’s concerns about:

1. historical repairs to the toilet seat hinges, bath handles, bath sealant and                  associated leaks.

2. repairs to the shower and bath taps.
3. the bathroom replacement.
4. the associated complaint.

Background

2.     The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement that began on 30 October 2011.

3.     The resident raised a complaint on 4 February 2023 because:

1. he was unhappy with the condition of the bathroom at the beginning of the tenancy. Particularly that it had not been renovated since the house was built over 35 years ago. “Over the last decade” several operatives had attended and recommended a new bathroom.
2. there were historical repairs to the bathroom that he was dissatisfied with, including:  a “botched” toilet seat hinge, broken bath handles, mouldy sealant, and associated leaks.
3. the shower was not working and had not been for some time.
4. the bathroom taps had stopped working and 2 repairs had taken place. However, at both appointments, only the top of the taps was renewed. This meant he had to re-report the repairs. And he was only able to wash in the sink. Despite this, he had been told it would take 4 days for another appointment for the taps to be fixed.

4.     The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 February 2023. It said:

1. since speaking with the resident, it had authorised a new bathroom to be installed. It would raise work for this in April 2023, at the start of the new financial year.
2. it had confirmed with the resident that all actions in relation to the complaint had been fulfilled and he had been satisfied with the outcome.
3. it apologised for any inconvenience during the length of the resident’s tenancy. And for any poor customer service he received.

5.     The replacement works did not commence in April 2023. As such, the resident escalated his complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2023 because of this. And due to receiving a call after the stage 1 complaint was closed and was told the bathroom would be replaced in 2025.

6.     The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It said:

1. its maintenance team had contacted the resident to confirm the bathroom was being “booked in” to be replaced. A third party contractor would conduct this.
2. it had tried to contact the resident to find out his availability for the work to start, but it had been unsuccessful.
3. it intended on arranging a meeting at the property with its third party contractor to run through the required work. After which it would be able to provide a start date for the work.
4. it would ensure the resident was informed of what was happening and that it expected to have finished the work in the “coming weeks”.
5. although it had made progress with the case, there were remaining actions to take before it had fulfilled its commitment to the resident. However, it proposed continuing to progress the complaint until the issues were fully resolved and it was in a position to provide its “full and final” stage 2 response.

8. The landlord completed the bathroom replacement on or around 31 July 2023.

9. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. It said:

1. it had brought forward the resident’s bathroom replacement as requested.
2. it apologised for any confusion caused by its miscommunication about delaying this to 2025.
3. it had confirmed with the resident that all works were completed, and the complaint was resolved.
4. it wanted to offer £340 compensation broken down as follows:
   1. £55 for delays in progressing and escalating the complaint.
   2. £55 for its miscommunication concerning the timescales for the bathroom replacement.
   3. £55 for the time and effort of the resident in reporting and chasing “issues”.
   4. £75 for the disruption caused by the conditions of the bathroom before the renewal.
   5. £100 for the overall delays experienced.

7.     The resident referred his complaint to us because he felt there were systemic issues with the landlord’s repair handling. This included not responding to repair reports, not turning up to appointments, and not making lasting fixes. He said he was particularly distressed at having the re-report issues with his bath taps and that the landlord had not recognised the impact of being unable to bathe for an extended period of time. He also explained that the bathroom replacement was of a poor standard, and he had experienced delays in rectifying this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

8.     The resident explained that he had made numerous historic reports about repairs to his bathroom, including historical repairs to the toilet seat hinges, bath handles, bath sealant, and associated leaks.

9.     Paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising;”

10. We acknowledge the resident’s experience. However, we also expect residents to bring their complaint to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring. This is normally within 12 months.

11. The resident explained to us that these issues had been ongoing since he moved into the property in 2011. There is no evidence that they were reported in the 12 months before the resident’s complaint in February 2023. Nor is there any evidence that they were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint during this period. On this basis, we are unable to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint.

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident explained that after the landlord replaced his bathroom, he had concerns about the quality of the work.

13. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Policies, procedures, and legal framework

14. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligation to keep in good repair and working order any installations provided for water and sanitation. This includes the shower and bath.

15. The agreement also sets out how it prioritises and responds to repairs, setting out timeframes for each (subject to the availability of manpower and materials). These repair categories and timeframes are:

1. emergency repairs are responded to within 24 hours.
2. urgent repairs are responded to in 7 days.
3. routine repairs are responded to in 28 days.
4. cyclical repairs are responded to as programmed.

16. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Once it is notified of the issue by a resident, landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective in all cases. The repairs should also be completed in a timely way to avoid impacting on the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.

Repairs to the shower

17. The resident reported the shower was not working on 12 September 2022. The repair logs note that a job was raised to “remove/repair/refix” it. They also note the “operative aborted on [the] first job”. And the job was completed on 23 September 2022.

18. The information about the landlord’s attendance, what it found, and if it carried out any work was limited. Therefore, it is unclear if the landlord attended and if any work was required. It was also unclear why the landlord completed the job on its systems in light of the lack of evidence showing the repair had been completed.

19. The resident told us that the shower was not working during this time. He said this caused him inconvenience because he could not use it. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we could not be satisfied that the landlord made a lasting and effective fix to the shower at this time. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it completed the repair appropriately and in accordance with its policy timescales.

20. There is also no evidence that the resident had a working shower from 12 September 2022 until the landlord replaced the bathroom on 31 July 2023. This was a period of 10 months. We recognise the resident did have access to a working bath for some of this time. However, this meant the resident had a partial loss of amenity for a protracted period. Thus, affecting his enjoyment of the property.

21. While there is no evidence the resident re-raised this repair with the landlord during this time, this does not negate its obligation to ensure the shower was in good working order. The landlord ought to have been able to demonstrate from its records that the shower was repaired in a reasonable time. And if there was a delay in doing so, this was unavoidable. It had not done this. This was a missed opportunity to explicitly document that it was monitoring and progressing the repair to the shower.

22. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

23. Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

24. We recognise that in February 2023, the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom. Therefore, it may have been reasonable for it to have chosen not to repair the shower while it arranged for the bathroom to be replaced. The landlord was entitled to consider the relevant financial constraints and that the resident had a working bath for some of this period. However, if this were the case, it ought to have explained this to the resident and considered how it could mitigate any inconvenience caused to him as a result of being without a shower in the interim. There is no evidence that it considered this or that it was aware it had failed to record it had repaired the shower. That it did not consider the resident’s loss of amenity while it sought to replace the bathroom was a failure to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s circumstances and communicated its position to the resident.

Conclusion

25. Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted reasonably in response to the resident’s report in September 2022. Further, its record keeping undermined its ability to demonstrate it had made a lasting and effective repair to the shower over a protracted period. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because he could not use his shower. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.

26. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.

27. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it was “sorry for any inconvenience caused during the length of the tenancy with the conditions of the bathroom”. In its final stage 2 response (August 2023) it offered compensation for this: £75 for the disruption caused by the conditions of the bathroom before the renewal. And £100 for the overall delays experienced.

28. We consider that the way the landlord offered some of its compensatory award in its final response was unfair to the resident. This is because it did not address the specific issues raised or the failures that underpinned its handling of them. This is explained further in the complaint handling section. As such, we have concluded it would be fair to replace the compensation award based on the individual issues investigated.

29. We recognise the landlord tried to put things right for the resident. However, we do not consider that the cumulative figure was appropriate or proportionate to address its failure to demonstrate it had repaired the shower over a protracted period. To put things right, the landlord must apologise for its delay that caused a loss of amenity. And pay the resident £500 for this. And pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress this caused. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

Bath taps

30. On 6 November 2022, the resident reported the bath taps were loose and leaking. The landlord raised a job accordingly. It completed this job on 8 November 2022. There is no evidence at this time that the resident was without running water to bathe himself. Therefore, the landlord appropriately responded within 2 days of the report.

31. On 30 January 2023, the resident reported that the hot water tap had broken. The landlord raised a job for this, which it completed on its system on 2 February 2023 (3 days later).

32. The landlord’s website categorises emergency repairs as something that poses an immediate risk to your health, safety, or security.” It provides an example of when hot water stops working and a member of the household’s health relies on regular bathing or where there are children under the age of five. We note during this time, the resident did not have a working shower but did have access to hot water. As the landlord responded within 3 days, we consider it reasonably treated the repair as urgent. And attended within the 7-day timeframe set out in the occupancy agreement for urgent repairs.

33. However, on 2 February 2023, the resident reported the bath taps were not working, and no water was coming through the taps. The landlord noted the operatives “aborted on [the] first job”. And the job was completed on 6 February 2023 (4 days later).

34. Although the records do not explicitly document there was an attendance by the landlord, the resident’s complaint correspondence suggests that one had taken place. Nonetheless this was a missed opportunity to capture important information about the repair in the repair logs. This was in line with its response times when dealing with an urgent repair. This was appropriate given the resident was without facilities to bathe during this time.

35. However, we also consider the fact that the resident re-reported a recurring issue on the same day was the cause of further frustration. He would reasonably have been expecting the issue to have been resolved following the attendance on 2 February, but instead it was necessary to contact the landlord for further assistance.

36. The repair logs detail that the landlord completed the job on 8 February 2023. However, in his complaint, the resident advised that no attendance took place. He explained this was inconvenient as he had arranged for family members to wait in because he needed to work.

37. The landlord therefore failed to attend an arranged appointment. There is no evidence about the reason for the missed appointment. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that this was an avoidable delay. The landlord appropriately apologised for this in correspondence with the resident and offered to put things right for the missed appointment by sending a box of chocolates or flowers to his family. This was reasonable to try to put things right in terms of the missed appointment. However, the landlord failed to consider that during this time the resident did not have access to bathing facilities and the impact of this on him.

38. The resident complained on 9 February 2023 that he was still without working bath taps. He explained he would have no choice but to use the sink to wash. He expressed concern that he was told he would need to wait “4 further days” for another appointment. He said he had received a text for an appointment on 14 February 2023, but he did not know what this was for. The repair logs show the landlord raised another job to repair the bath taps on 6 February 2023. The job was completed on 15 February 2023, according to the landlord’s system.

39. The landlord ought to have explained that it intended to visit on 14 February 2023, prior to texting the resident. Its lack of clarity in its communication would have caused uncertainty and frustration. Especially given that the resident needed to arrange for family members to be present to allow access for the appointment. It was evident from correspondence at the time that the landlord was aware that the resident needed to put in place arrangements for access.

40. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the lack of bathing facilities. We recognise that there was no issue in terms of the water not heating up, but the resident was unable to wash/bathe using the bath or shower. And this should reasonably have prompted the landlord to consider whether the repair could be prioritised. That it did not was a failure to appropriately consider the impact of its delay on the resident’s access to basic amenities.

41. Prior to this appointment, the landlord said it had found that operatives had been using reviver kits. It said this was unacceptable and had spoken with the operative about this. Speaking with the staff member was appropriate in the circumstances. However, this indicates a lack of basic knowledge for what should have been a straightforward repair. The landlord must consider whether refresher training for relevant staff members is required.

42. Further, the repairs required were not fully completed until 8 March 2023, because the blank fittings were required where handles were missing. This was a considerable delay. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this delay was avoidable had the landlord had effective oversight of the repair.

Conclusion

43. Overall, it took the landlord 16 days to make a lasting and effective repair to the bath taps. Consequently, the resident was without basic amenities to bathe himself during this period. The landlord’s approach failed to consider the resident’s circumstances or to demonstrate it had appropriately considered prioritising the repair. Its repair response overall was poor because it missed opportunities to make a lasting and effective repair. As such, we consider there was maladministration in its handling of this repair.

44. As explained earlier in the report, the landlord offered generalised compensation for its repair handling. This was broken down as follows:

1. £55 for the time and effort of the resident in reporting and chasing “issues”.
2. £75 for the disruption caused by the conditions of the bathroom before the renewal.
3. £100 for the overall delays experienced.

45. We recognise the landlord was trying to put things right for its overall failures. However, considering both the level of the failure and the impact of this on the resident, we do not consider that the landlord’s offer was proportionate to address the detriment. Therefore, the landlord must apologise for the failures we have identified. It must also pay the resident £250 for the loss of amenity and £100 for the time, trouble and distress and inconvenience of this. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

46. In addition, because the landlord did not set out its investigation into the matter, it did not identify the cause of its failures and how it had learnt from the complaint. Therefore, it must conduct a case review of the repairs to the bath taps and identify what went wrong, why, and how it will prevent this from happening again in future.

Request for a bathroom replacement

47.  The resident explained in his complaint on 4 February 2023 that he felt the condition of the bathroom was poor. He explained that this was because it had not been renovated since the property was constructed 35 years previously. He also said that during previous repair appointments, the landlord’s operatives had advised him that the bathroom needed to be replaced.

48. We acknowledge the resident’s position that operatives may have advised him that the bathroom required replacement. We do not doubt what the resident has stated. However, we have not seen any evidence that operatives had recommended a bathroom replacement prior to the resident’s complaint. There is also no evidence that the resident had made any reports to the landlord (during the scope of this investigation) about this matter.

49. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged to inspect the bathroom. Although it did not provide evidence of when it inspected, that this happened was not in dispute. The repair logs show that this was likely to have occurred between 4 February and 8 February 2023. This is because the resident explained on 9 February 2023 in his communications to the landlord that he was waiting for the surveyor’s recommendation for a new bathroom to be assessed by the landlord. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the landlord responded in a timely manner to investigate the resident’s concerns.

50. We asked the landlord to provide evidence of the survey, however, it failed to do so. As such, we cannot conclude what the condition of the bathroom was at this time. This meant we are unable to determine how urgently the bathroom replacement was required. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to document its findings.

51. Regardless, the landlord’s decision was that it ultimately needed to replace the bathroom. On 10 February 2023 it appropriately raised a job for the bathroom to be replaced. The evidence shows that the job needed to be agreed by a senior manager. And that additional consent was also gained for the job to be brought into the landlord’s 2023/2024 budget. This was gained promptly, within a day of raising the job.

52. The resident explained that he wanted the bathroom replaced before April 2023. And he considered this to be a delay. Although the landlord’s planned maintenance policy does not obligate the landlord to carry out larger scale repairs in a specified time, it does set out that it carries out stock condition surveys on a regular basis, which informs its schedule of programmed repairs.

53. There is no evidence to suggest the resident’s bathroom was included in the landlord’s planned maintenance schedule. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that demonstrated the bathroom required an urgent replacement, its decision to include the bathroom in its 2023/2024 maintenance schedule was at the landlord’s discretion. That it did so was over and above its obligations in the circumstances.

54. The landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 17 February 2023 as part of its stage 2 response. And said that it had authorised the bathroom replacement. It explained work would be raised in April 2023 to coincide with the new financial year. The landlord then accordingly raised another job for the bathroom to be surveyed on 9 March 2023. This demonstrated it was trying to progress the work with the intention of meeting its April deadline.

55. However, in or around early May 2023, the resident said he received a telephone call explaining that the bathroom would not be replaced until 2025. This caused the resident to escalate his complaint. In response the landlord to called him and explained the bathroom was still due to be replaced during 2023. It later apologised for its miscommunication and offered £55 compensation for the distress of this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

56. However, we note that there is no evidence the landlord took any action to progress the bathroom replacement between 9 March 2023 and the resident’s escalation request (17 May 2023). It is unclear if this was because it took no action or because it failed to document in its repair logs what it was doing during this time. This was further missed opportunity to evidence it was taking steps to progress the replacement during this time.

57. Given the landlord had set an expectation that the work would be raised during April 2023, it would have been reasonable for it to have engaged with the resident about what it needed to do and respective timeframes for this. This would have managed his expectations about the next steps of the process. That it did not was a failure to communicate meaningfully with the resident about the bathroom replacement and manage his expectations around this. This caused him time and trouble escalating his complaint and chasing the work.

58. The landlord’s communications during 31 May 2023 and 14 June 2023 indicate it said it was trying to book a further inspection with the resident. This was so it could attend the property with its third party contractor to create a schedule of work and confirm a start date. However, it did not provide evidence of having tried to contact the resident to arrange this. Therefore, it failed to demonstrate it was taking reasonable steps to progress the bathroom replacement during this time.

59. This was also the first time the landlord evidenced it had told the resident that a third party contractor was conducting the work. Its internal communications on 28 June 2023 indicated that the bathroom replacement was “stopped during stage 1” due to resource. And because its repair contracts did not cover bathroom replacements.

60. While we recognise this type of work may not have been covered by its existing repair contracts, it is unclear why the landlord did not identify this sooner and subcontract the work. It ought to have been aware of this when it initially raised the bathroom replacement in February 2023, so that it could respond appropriately. This contributed to its delay in progressing the work. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this was an avoidable delay. Given that the landlord was aware it had “stopped” work during February 2023 (stage 1 of the process), it ought to have communicated this to the resident at an earlier opportunity. That it did not was a failure to provide important updates on its progress and manage the resident’s expectations.

61. On 28 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the bathroom replacement would commence on 10 July 2023. The resident confirmed the bathroom replacement had been completed on 31 July 2023. This was 5 months after the landlord had agreed to replace it in February 2023.

Conclusion

62. We consider that the landlord’s record keeping actively contributed to the poor coordination of the bathroom replacement. And its ability to demonstrate it was actively progressing the work. This would have also affected its ability to communicate effectively with the resident about what it was doing, why, and when. It was also of concern that the landlord delayed in identifying the gap in its contract management for the work. This contributed to the delays the resident experienced as well as the distress and frustration he felt during this time. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.

63. We note the landlord said in its second stage 2 response that it recognised the resident’s time and trouble chasing the bathroom replacement. It apologised for this and offered him £55. It also made a generalised offer of £100 for its overall delays. However, it failed to recognise that it also missed opportunities to engage with the resident from the outset and to manage his expectations around the process, associated timeframes, and delays. Had it done so, it could have managed the landlord and tenant relationship more effectively. Therefore, we consider that although it acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

64. In line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ the landlord must apologise for the failures we found. And pay the resident £150 in recognition of its poor communication and avoidable delays in the progressing the bathroom replacement.

Complaint handling

65. Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:

1. address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
2. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

66. The landlord issued its complaint responses in line with the timeframes set out in the former Code. This was as follows:

1. stage 1 response (17 February 2023) within 9 working days of the complaint (4 February 2023).
2. stage 2 response (14 June 2023) within 19 working days of the escalation request (17 May 2023).

67. However, neither of its complaint responses demonstrated the landlord investigated its handling of the shower repair. This was inappropriate because the resident said the shower was not working in his formal complaint in February 2023, and the repair logs available to us showed a recent repair, 5 months previously. Therefore, the landlord ought to have investigated this and set out its position. That it did not was a departure from the Code and a failure to address all the elements of the complaint. This caused frustration to the resident because he felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.

68. We note the landlord issued a secondary stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. This was just after the bathroom replacement had been completed and contained the full offer of compensation it made.

69. This later stage 2 response ultimately delayed the resident from receiving some of the compensation being awarded. Some of the failures ought to have reasonably been known to the landlord, including the repairs to bath taps, its miscommunication around when the bathroom replacement would be undertaken, as well as some of the time and trouble taken to chase repairs. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to have addressed this during its stage 2 response on 18 May 2023. That it did not do so was a failure to resolve all the elements of the complaint at the earliest opportunity. This caused avoidable delay to the resident when it tried to put things right.

70. As part of addressing a complaint, the former Code sets out that landlords should consider all information and evidence carefully. Following this, the landlord should try to put things right where things have gone wrong. This includes setting out the reasons for any decisions it makes and details of any remedy offered to put things right. We consider the landlord failed to do this because although it recognised it had “delayed” and its actions caused “disruption”, it did not set out what it had considered and why, to explain how it came to this conclusion.

71. While the overall decision was not inherently wrong, its failure to explain the reasons behind its decision meant we could not be satisfied it had adequately investigated each of the repair issues raised. Nor considered their significance, length of time they were ongoing, or the cumulative impact on the resident. Because of this, it failed to appropriately explain its offer of redress. Instead, it used blanket terms such as “overall delay” and “disruption caused”.  This generalised approach was a missed opportunity to set out its investigation and the corresponding remedies. This caused frustration to the resident because the landlord was not being transparent about its failures.

72. We also found the landlord failed to explain what it had learnt from the complaint. And what it would do to prevent its complaint handling failures from recurring. This is an important part of our Dispute Resolution Principles because a positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents. We encourage landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.

Conclusion

73. On this basis, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord failed to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint, resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity and explain what it got wrong, why, and how it had learnt from outcomes.

74. To put things right, the landlord must apologise and pay £100 in recognition of the distress caused by its poor complaint handling failures. It must also conduct a review of this complaint to identify what went wrong, why, and how it can use this to improve its service delivery. It must also evidence that it has conducted complaint handling training in the last 6 months with particular reference to answering all elements of a complaint and providing explanations of what went wrong and details of any remedy to put things right.

Determination

75. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of historical repairs to the toilet seat hinges, bath handles, bath sealant and associated leaks is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

76. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

1. repairs to the shower.
2. repairs to the bath taps.
3. the bathroom replacement.
4. the associated complaint.

Orders

77. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

1. apologise to the resident for the failures we found set out in this report.
2. pay the resident £1,250, comprising of:
   1. £500 for the partial loss of amenity for the shower for 10 months.
   2. £150 in recognition of the distress caused by its handling of repairs to the shower.
   3. £250 for the loss of amenity of the bath for 16 days.
   4. £100 for the time, trouble and distress and inconvenience of its handling of the repairs to the bath taps.
   5. £150 in recognition of its poor communication and avoidable delays in the progressing the bathroom replacement.
   6. £100 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.

This replaces the landlord’s offer of compensation made during the complaint’s procedure. It is entitled to offset the compensation it has already paid against the total compensation we have awarded.

3. evidence it had conducted complaint handling training in the last 6 months that covered responding to all elements of complaints and providing a remedy to put things right.
4. conduct a review of:
   1. its complaint handling in this case. This must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can use this to improve its service delivery.
   2. the repairs to the bath taps and identify what went wrong, why, and how it will prevent this from happening again in future.

It must write a report and share this with us and the resident, explaining its findings, any measures it intends to take and associated timeframes.

3. technical knowledge of relevant staff members for tap repairs. And consider whether further training may be required.

It must write a report and share this with us explaining its findings, any measures it intends to take and associated timeframes.

5. provide evidence of compliance with the orders set out above.