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

Accent Housing Limited (202312879)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312879

Accent Housing Limited

17 December 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of plumbing repairs affecting the toilet and drains.
    2. reports of a radiator repair.
    3. hearing and communication needs.
  2. This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom end of terrace house that is owned and managed by a landlord that is a registered provider. The resident signed a deed of assignment to take over an assured tenancy agreement by way of mutual exchange in 2017. The landlord records that the resident is hearing impaired and requires communication in writing.
  2. The resident reported a toilet leak and a blocked drain to the landlord between May 2018 and March 2023. Additionally, she reported a leaking radiator to it between September 2022 and March 2023. The landlord inspected the property and completed repairs on different dates but did not fully resolve the matters. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 24 March 2023 about its handling of these repairs, in which she said:
    1. the leaking toilet and the blocked drains were a health risk that should be taken seriously and, as she was disabled, she was at a greater risk of illness;
    2. she wore hearing aids and so talking on the phone was difficult. However, it had left a voicemail for her, despite her repeated requests to email her;
    3. she had booked a repair using its online booking system. However, it had rearranged the appointment without providing an explanation why it had cancelled the appointment she had booked;
    4. she had reported a faulty radiator in September 2022 which had still not been fixed;
    5. as the repairs were urgent, she expected the landlord to fix them the next day to a high standard without saying it needed to order a part.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 3 April 2023, and it sent its response to the resident on 24 April 2023, in which it:
    1. summarised its response to a leaking toilet and blocked drain and confirmed that it had arranged for a full CCTV survey to take place on 24 April 2023, which would inform its next actions for a permanent resolution;
    2. summarised its response to a faulty radiator that it had repaired as an emergency repair on 2 October 2022, and within its 28-day repair guidelines on 30 March 2023;
    3. advised the resident that it had emailed her on 3 April 2023 to check the radiator repair but, as it had not received a reply, she should report the matter if there was still a fault;
    4. said that it had identified learning from the complaint and had asked its contractor to improve their systems and read the preferred method of contact advice they record to prevent poor service from happening again.
  4. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 25 May 2023, in which she said:
    1. it had not mentioned all of the dates she had included in her stage 1 complaint;
    2. it had not addressed her concerns about the electrics in the property and compensation for a carpet she had thrown away;
    3. the first time she had been notified that it would survey the pipes was via an attachment it had sent to her, but no one had attended the property to carry out the survey it scheduled for 24 April 2023;
    4. someone had attended the property on 25 May 2023 while she was out without booking an appointment or indicating if there was still an issue with the pipes;
    5. the pipes had not been cleared and the current blockage was ongoing.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 25 May 2023, and it sent a final stage 2 response to the resident on 29 June 2023. The landlord restated the previous advice it had provided about its handling of a drainage issue and a radiator repair. Additionally, it said:
    1. it had cancelled a CCTV survey it had booked to take place on 24 April 2023 in error, for which it apologised and had taken steps to ensure it did not happen again;
    2. it had completed the CCTV survey on 25 May 2023 and cleared a blockage in a manhole so as to restore full flow from the property on the same day;
    3. it had left a voicemail to change a leaking toilet repair appointment date to 3 April 2023. This was because its online booking system allows residents to request repair dates, however these are subsequently confirmed by its contractor upon receipt of the repair request based on the availability of their engineers;
    4. it would arrange and complete an electrical test in response to concerns the resident had raised about the electrics during a conversation she held with an engineer on 28 June 2023. It said that this matter did not form part of the original complaint.
  6. The resident raised the matter with the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023, in which she said that she wanted the landlord to complete repairs to prevent the toilet from blocking, replace the floorboards, complete a specialist survey prior to descaling the pipework, and repair the property’s electrics. We wrote to the resident on 24 September 2023 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Scheme states at paragraph 42.a. that the Ombudsman may not, under normal circumstances, investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.” In the submission the resident made to the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023, she said that she had reported concerns about the electricity and the fuse board not working properly at her property to the landlord. In its final complaint response, the landlord noted that the resident had raised concerns about the property’s electrics on 28 June 2023, which had not been part of the original complaint. The Ombudsman has not investigated these concerns, as these matters have not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the issue remains outstanding following our below recommendation about this, the resident should report it again and complain to the landlord, and then, if necessary, to the Ombudsman.
  2. Additionally, in the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 25 May 2023 she reported that the landlord had not responded to her compensation request for a damaged carpet. However, the resident had not raised this matter in her stage 1 complaint. Consequently, the Ombudsman has not investigated this matter as it has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure either, in keeping with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. If this issue also remains outstanding following our below recommendation about this, the resident should report it again too and complain to the landlord, and then, if necessary, to the Ombudsman.
  3. It is clear from the evidence submitted to the Ombudsman related to this case that the resident had reported drain blockages to the landlord since 2018. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that they have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising, under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme.
  4. In view of the time periods involved in this case, this assessment does not consider events dating back to 2018. The additional historical issues the resident has referred to provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the recent events and, specifically, to the complaint the resident made on 24 March 2023.

Plumbing repairs

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, and external pipes). This also says it is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of waters, gas, and electricity and for sanitations (including sanitary conveniences). It is additionally obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, fixtures, the structure, and outside of the property in good repair.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. A property is unfit for habitation if there are problems with the drainage or the lavatories. Additionally, a property is not reasonably suitable for occupation if there is a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  3. It is evident that the resident first reported a blocked toilet to the landlord in May 2018 and that it cleared the blockage within 24 hours of the resident’s report. The resident reported further toilet blockages to the landlord twice in September 2018. She explained that an attending operative had adjusted a pipe, but had left it uncapped, which had caused a stench. Additionally, she said that that it had not unblocked the drains, despite her reporting this. The landlord traced the problems to a blocked gully and a blocked soil pipe that ran into a manhole on 1 November 2018. The landlord noted that it required a drainage engineer to clear the blockage with a jet. It is unclear to what extent the landlord completed this repair, but the resident continued to report toilet and drain blockages to the landlord a further 5 times during 2018 and 2019.
  4. When reporting a blocked toilet to the landlord on 13 April 2019, the resident reported that the utility provider had said that the outside drain required descaling. The landlord attended the property on 24 April 2019, and it attended again on 9 July 2019 as a recall to the repair it had completed on 24 April 2019. The extent of the repairs the landlord completed on these dates is also unclear.
  5. The landlord had a responsibility under HHSRS to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A hazard is any risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of accommodation that arises from a deficiency in the dwelling, building, or land in the vicinity. An inadequate provision of sanitation and drainage are both listed as hazards. While it is evident that the landlord responded to reports the resident submitted in an ad hoc way, there is no evidence that it took a wider view of the recurring drainage issues with reference to its HHSRS obligations.
  6. The resident reported a blocked toilet to the landlord again on 21 March 2023. She explained that the utility provider had said that the pipes required sandblasting as they were old, and that the drains needed to be power washed. The landlord’s responsive repairs and voids policy said that it would classify repairs that posed an immediate risk to health and/or safety as an emergency that it would resolve within 24 hours. It also said that it would make appointments based on the urgency of the work required and the resident’s needs and circumstances.
  7. The landlord noted during a previous repair on 21 December 2018 that there was only one toilet in the property, and on 1 December 2021, it noted that the resident was disabled. It was therefore inappropriate for it not to have arranged an appointment as an emergency within 24 hours, in keeping with its repairs policy. This was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She subsequently submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the above matters on 24 March 2023.
  8. The resident reported the leaking toilet to the landlord again on 27 March 2023 and requested an appointment the next day using its online repairs system. The landlord attended the property on 28 March 2023, 1 April 2023, and 3 April 2023 and reported that it could not access the blockage, which was a mains issue and therefore not the landlord’s responsibility. It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the assessment of its qualified contractor. However, it subsequently reinspected the property on 5 April 2023 and determined that the blockage was within its responsibility.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that some repairs are difficult to diagnose and require additional inspection. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have identified its repair responsibilities sooner given there were historical reports of toilet and drain repairs. Facilitating multiple inspection appointments was likely to have caused time and trouble to the resident that could have been avoided.
  10. The landlord commissioned a CCTV drain survey to take place on 24 April 2023 so as to determine if there was any structural damage to the pipes. This was reasonable under the circumstances to better understand the extent of the repairs required. However, it subsequently cancelled the appointment on an undisclosed date prior to the survey taking place, which was unreasonable. This was likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  11. The landlord rearranged the CCTV survey to take place on 25 April 2023. However, it reported that it did not need to use CCTV, and it cleared the blockage using a rod and jetter so as restore full flow to the property. The landlord could not have foreseen that its decision to clear the blockage without surveying the drain using CCTV would not fully resolve the matters and that a recurrence of blockages would follow. However, it should have taken into account the long standing nature of the drain blockage and the advice that it had been provided about the condition of the pipework, and the requirement for sandblasting and power washing. This was a failing that was likely to have caused further inconvenience to the resident while living in the property with ongoing repairs. Furthermore, she reported this damaged her carpet and floorboards due to a sewage back surge from the outstanding drain blockage.
  12. The landlord noted in its final complaint response that it had reattended the property on 25 May 2023 to complete a drain survey, and to clear a further blockage in the drain. However, there is no evidence that this took place in May 2023 beyond the landlord’s statement in its complaint response. The notes the landlord referenced were included on a works order from a survey it had completed on 25 April 2023, when it said CCTV was not required. This is addressed in the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Notwithstanding this, the Ombudsman cannot conclude whether the landlord had completed any further repairs to remedy the drainage problems that affected the toilet prior to responding to the stage 2 complaint on 29 June 2023.
  13. In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that it tried to keep the preferred appointments that residents request online, but that on some occasions it needed to arrange these. It also apologised that it had cancelled a drain survey in error. This was appropriate under the circumstances. However, the response was lacking in any acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident an award of compensation for its failings, which it was entitled to do in keeping with its compensation policy and procedure. But it missed the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, it failed to recognise the likely time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its failure to resolve the drainage matters caused the resident over an unreasonable amount of time.
  14. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and an acknowledgement of service failure) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  15. The landlord’s response explained that it had notified its contractor of the poor service it had provided as evidence that it had taken learning from the complaint. However, it failed to clarify whether it would complete specialist drainage works and/or whether it had put things right so as to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repairs service. The landlord’s handling of the drainage and toilet repairs likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who resided in a property with significant plumbing issues. Furthermore, she was required to commit an unreasonable amount of time and effort reporting and pursuing a lasting repair. The landlord should have remedied these based upon its previous inspections, the advice shared from the utility provider, and a recurrence of the blockages. Taking all matters into account, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plumbing repairs affecting the toilet and drains.
  16. The landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the extent of its failings in its response, and it has been unable to resolve the drainage issues which had been recurring for over 4 years. The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests a range of awards where maladministration is found that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. An award of £600 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that has been caused to the resident for the impact of the landlord’s accumulated repair handling failings. Additionally, it has been ordered to apologise to the resident in writing and inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If so, it is to provide the resident and us with details of and a timetable for the works.

Radiator repair

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and within the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the heating installations in the property. In its complaint response of 24 April 2023, it noted that the resident had reported a faulty radiator to it on 22 September 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord visited the property to repair or assess the radiator prior to the resident reporting it on 2 October 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have responded the residents initial repair report. This caused time and trouble to her in pursuing the repair. Notwithstanding this, the landlord scheduled the repair appointment on 2 October 2022, in keeping with its responsive repairs and void’s policy’s 28–calendar–day target for a routine repair. This was appropriate under the circumstances.
  2. The landlord noted on the works order that it needed to order a bleeding plug and complete a further repair to complete the repair. However, it subsequently telephoned the resident on 3 and 4 October 2022, and emailed her on 4 and 5 October 2023, to check if the leaking radiator had been repaired. The landlord’s attempts to verify that the resident was satisfied with the repair evidenced that it had taken a resolution focused approach to the repair. However, it was inappropriate for it not to have reviewed the notes on its works order prior to doing so. Had it done so it would have recognised that the repair had not been completed. This was a failing.
  3. There is evidence that the resident responded to the landlord about the radiator repair on 7 October 2022. She advised the landlord that an operative had attended to stop the radiator leak, but that it needed replacing. However, there is no evidence that the landlord ordered any parts to progress and complete the repair. The landlord was expected to have used the information it had itself recorded and retained on its repair databases effectively when handling the repairs. Its failure to do so was a further failing.
  4. The resident reported the faulty radiator to the landlord again on 4 March 2023. She said that she had been more than patient waiting for the radiator replacement and for the heating to be fixed during the cold winter months. Additionally, she said that she required the repair to be completed within the approaching 2 weeks. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have satisfied itself that it had appropriately repaired the radiator. This likely caused inconvenience to the resident during the colder winter months, and time and trouble in pursuing the outstanding repair, which could have been avoided.
  5. The landlord scheduled a repair on 14 March 2023, in keeping with its routine repair timescales. However, it was unable to complete the repair until 30 March 2023 when it drained down the radiator and fixed the bleed vent. It was appropriate for the landlord to have attended the property and scheduled and completed the repair within 28 calendar days. However, given it had not repaired the radiator when the resident had originally reported it 5 months previously, this was a failing.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2023, to once again check whether radiator repair had been completed successfully. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  7. The landlord addressed the matter in its complaint response, in which it said that it had repaired the radiator as an emergency appointment on 2 October 2022. It also said that it had repaired the radiator again on 30 March 2023 in keeping with its repairs timescales. The landlord’s response was not an accurate description of the events this investigation has identified in the preceding paragraphs. The landlord failed to recognise that it had previously recorded that it required parts, and a further appointment to remedy the faulty radiator in October 2022. Consequently, the landlord failed to recognise its repair handling failings. Therefore, it did not offer reasonable redress to the resident, such as an apology and/or an award of compensation for the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord response to the resident’s reports of faulty radiator.
  8. The Ombudsman is of the view that the resident is due an award of compensation for the likely detriment the above matters caused to her. The landlord’s repair handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but had an adverse effect in terms of the likely time, trouble, and inconvenience it had caused her. An award of £200 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to apologise to the resident in writing, and to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required.

Communication with the resident

  1. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017, which was in force at the time of the resident’s complaint, says landlords shall provide choices, information, and communication appropriate to the diverse needs of residents. It goes on to say that landlords shall demonstrate they understand the different needs of residents, including in relation to equality and additional support needs. In September 2018, the resident reported to the landlord that she struggled to speak on the telephone due to her hearing impairment and asked it to email an appointment to her. It is unclear to what extent the landlord responded to the resident’s request for email communication. However, there is evidence that it left a voicemail for the resident to advise her that it had booked an appointment on 21 January 2019.
  2. Under the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents with a protected characteristic. This includes people with a disability. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2021, in which she said that the landlord was aware that she was a disabled resident because she had told it that she was. The landlord’s vulnerability information guidance document says that, if it is necessary to record sensitive medical or health information, then this should always be discussed with the resident first. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. Given the resident had previously notified the landlord that she preferred email communication due to her hearing needs, it would have been appropriate for it to have discussed the matter with her. By failing to do so the landlord missed the opportunity to engage with the resident and update its records about her vulnerability and communication needs.
  3. There is evidence that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s communication needs on 6 May 2022 in advance of an online meeting it had arranged to discuss outstanding repairs. The landlord asked the resident if there was anything it could do to make things easier for her to take part in the meeting. The resident notified the landlord that she used a hearing loop and closed caption facilities, and it subsequently confirmed that it had accessibility features available on its systems, which it would test in advance of the video call. It is unclear whether the meeting took place, but it was appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s needs with her so as to accommodate her personal circumstances, in keeping with the Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017.
  4. However, the landlord subsequently failed to accommodate the resident’s communication preferences by telephoning her on 3 and 4 October 2022 about the radiator repair. Additionally, it left a voicemail on an undisclosed date to notify her of a change of appointment. The landlord’s failure to ensure that its previous discussions about her communication needs was recorded and acted upon was unreasonable. This was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, and time and trouble raising the matter as a stage 1 complaint on 24 March 2023.
  5. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that the resident had let it know on several occasions that she required email communication due to a hearing impairment. However, it failed to recognise or apologise for any inconvenience its failings to consistently accommodate her needs may have caused her. It said that it had taken learning from the complaint, and that it had asked its contractor to ensure they read any contact preference messages it recorded. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided information about what it would do to ensure its records were up to date. Further, that it intended to work with her to improve the situation so as to rebuild her confidence in its housing services.
  6. The landlord additionally failed to award any compensation for the likely time, trouble, and inconvenience its response to the resident’s communication needs had caused. This would have been appropriate under the circumstances. Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident’s hearing and communication needs.
  7. An award of £100 as compensation has been ordered below for the impact the landlord’s communication failings may have had on the resident. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its failings and/or had not fully put them right. Additionally, it has been ordered to apologise to the resident in writing.
  8. On 12 June 2024, the landlord reported to the Ombudsman that it had updated the resident’s vulnerabilities and contact preferences on its systems on 4 April 2023 to reflect the information she had provided. While this report has found failings by the landlord in its response to the resident’s communication needs, it has provided evidence which shows that it reviewed its Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion policy in April 2023. We have therefore not made any further orders or recommendations for it to review its approach to EDI.

Complaint handling

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. did not register the resident’s stage 1 complaint that she submitted via the landlord’s online portal on 24 March 2023, so she had to resubmit it on 27 March 2023;
    2. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 24 March 2023 until 21 April 2023, which was 8 working days later that the landlord’s 10 working day complaint policy target timescale;
    3. did not agree an extension of time for providing its stage 1 response in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place at the time. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties;
    4. did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint, such as by explaining why it had cancelled the repair appointment she had booked online. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint;
    5. incorrectly said that it had reattended the property to complete a CCTV drainage survey on 25 May 2023, instead of 25 April 2023;
    6. incorrectly said that it had carried out the CCTV survey despite the notes on the works order stating that it had cleared the blockage without the need to use CCTV;
    7. did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.8 of the Code, which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made;
    8. incorrectly said that the resident could escalate the stage 1 complaint to stage 3 of its complaint procedure instead of stage 2, which was confusing; 
    9. did not raise a new stage 1 complaint to address the resident’s concerns about the electrics in the property and a damaged carpet. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code says that, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation after a stage 1 response has been issued, the matter should be raised as a new complaint;
    10. did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint, such as by responding to her request for the compensation for a carpet that had to be thrown away. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint;
    11. said that it had completed a CCTV survey at the property on 25 May 2023, which contradicted notes on the repair order that said it had located a blockage without the use of CCTV;
    12. did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.16 of the Code, which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the matters and missed the opportunity to work with the resident to improve the situation. The landlord said that it had taken learning from the complaint, which it had forwarded to its contractor. However, it failed to explain what it would do to put things right and when this would be achieved.
  3. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure enables it to compensate residents that have experienced some form of loss, inconvenience, or distress because of its actions, inactions, or service failure. However, it failed to consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. Consequently, it failed to recognise the time and trouble its failings had likely caused the resident in pursuing a response to the outstanding matters via the complaint procedure. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have recognised its failings and sought to put right matters, and to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its housing services.
  4. The complaint handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience it may have caused her. An award of £150 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. Additionally, we have asked it to write to her to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
      1. reports of plumbing repairs affecting the toilet and drains.
      2. reports of a radiator repair.
      3. handling of the resident’s complaint.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s hearing and communication needs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of repairs affecting the toilet, drains, and radiator and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident £1,050 total compensation made up as follows:
      1. £600 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the completion of plumbing repairs affecting the toilet and drains.
      2. £200 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a radiator repair.
      3. £100 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s hearing and communication needs.
      4. £150 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

  1. Inspect the resident’s property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required, the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
  1. Consider whether it needs to monitor the resident’s particular drain pipe in the future, given the problem was caused by a recurring blockage that may require substantial works. In reaching its conclusion, the landlord should consider whether it needs to seek professional advice from an expert. It should also write to the resident and the Ombudsman to explain its findings and inform her of any action it plans to take.
  1. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding drainage repairs within 12 weeks to identify exactly why its failings in handling her reports happened, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. An assessment of the resident’s property with reference to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and whether there is a hazard under HHSRS.
      2. Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs on the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and HHSRS.
      3. Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs on its complaints policy and the Code.

This is to ensure it provides full, prompt, appropriate, and effective responses to residents’ reports of outstanding repairs that it is responsible for, and to formal complaints, in every relevant case.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Complete a survey of the electrics in the resident’s property and write to the resident to clarify whether any repairs are required. If so, the landlord is recommended to agree a timetable, in accordance with its responsive repairs and voids policy, with the resident prior to scheduling and completing the works.
    2. Provide the resident with details to allow her to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damage she reported to her carpet.