Accent Housing Limited (202319356)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319356

Accent Housing Limited

17 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a reimbursement of electricity charges.
2. Reports of communication issues around day-to-day repairs and fire safety works.
3. Reports of communal repairs.
4. Concerns around fire safety.
5. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal area and request for CCTV.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is the shared owner of a flat in a block of 52 residential flats owned and managed by the landlord.
The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 14 March 2023 which included gangs entering the building via the fire exit, which was broken, vandalism, smoking, intimidation, and knives being found. The landlord said it would open an ASB case, and on 15 March 2023 it repaired the fire exit doors, ordered a new lock for the front door, and worked with the police who would be doing more patrols. It said it would review the situation regularly and look at further security measures if required.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with it:
1. ignoring outstanding repairs and security concerns, not providing updates on concerns when raised, and not completing repairs when reported
2. not putting adequate systems in place to ensure the safety of residents
3. not resetting the faults on the fire alarm panel after the misuse by youths
4. not looking at CCTV despite her providing dates and times of incidents
5. not providing regular updates on the fire safety works that were promised
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said:
1. it was aware communication with residents could be better, it would provide website updates on the building works, it would put a communication chart in the notice board and would send all residents a copy
2. it would hold monthly meetings which would link with police, allow it to provide progress on day-to-day work and fire safety works, and allow all attendees to raise concerns
3. it had passed the window repairs to a contractor, raised an order for the lift buttons, and repaired all fire doors which were working correctly
4. the police would be doing extra patrols but after sharing the CCTV footage, collectively they had not been able to identify anyone
5. it was seeking quotes for additional CCTV, but this would involve a consultation exercise due to the costs
6. it was aware of the misuse of the fire alarms, but the repairs to the fire doors and the main door had resulted in no further incidents being reported
7. there was temporary lighting at the back of the building near the exit
8. a full evacuation policy was in place, and it would update the website
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 April 2023 stating the matters had not been dealt with adequately. She said:
1. sufficient notice must be given for the monthly meetings to be effective, and no arrangements had been made for the May meeting
2. the communication chart had not been put on the noticeboard and the version sent to residents did not include the detail requested by residents
3. repairs were taking far too long, and some reported in the stage 1 complaint were still outstanding
4. the landlord was responsible for preventing non-residents accessing the building and CCTV was needed on landings as residents did not feel safe
5. the lighting had been restored at the back of the building, but it was unacceptable that residents had been left in darkness for months
6. the fire evacuation procedure on the website had not been updated
7. the landlord had not addressed the front doors to the building and the lack of updates regarding the fire safety works
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 16 May 2023 in which it:
1. confirmed it had updated its website and sent letters to residents about the fire safety work which included estimated completion dates
2. acknowledged the meetings promised by the contractor completing the works had not gone ahead and a direct email was provided for any queries
3. provided the email for the homeownership team and advised the first point of contact for any general enquiries should be the contact team
4. provided updates on the outstanding repairs raised by the resident and said her feedback had raised issues to be addressed internally and externally
5. provided an update on the suggestions made by the resident to improve ASB, and confirmed updates would be sent when available
6. confirmed there were plans to review the fire strategy
7. confirmed the calculation of communal electricity charges
On 12 June 2023 and in response to an email from the resident, the landlord provided a further update. It confirmed:
1. it would not be holding monthly meetings and there was nothing in the lease or tenancy agreement that said the landlord would do so
2. incorrect information had been given, and it did not offer weekly updates around communal repair delays
3. the leasehold team was available for lease queries and other teams were available for other queries, but if the resident was unhappy, she could access the complaint procedure
4. it would provide more contact details for individual teams once a recruitment exercise had finished
5. the communication regarding the fire safety works had not been as frequent as it would have liked
6. the repairs service had not been to the level expected and that it continued to make improvements
7. there were no immediate solutions for ASB, but it was considering options with the police and crime prevention team and would share when available
8. security patrols had not raised any problems, and it was not going to install additional CCTV as it did not think it would act as a deterrent
9. the fire strategy would be reviewed following the completion of the building works, and residents would be notified once completed
10. it had assured residents it would cover all electricity costs associated with fire safety works and would make an allowance for this when it completed the annual service charge accounts
The resident referred her complaint to us on 31 July 2023. It related to:
1. communication about repairs
2. reports of outstanding communal repairs
3. reports of ASB in the communal area and request for CCTV
4. concerns regarding fire safety
5. electricity used by contractors being charged to residents
As a resolution the resident wanted the landlord to:
1. complete the outstanding repairs
2. better tackle ASB and improvements to security
3. provide evidence of a full fire safety assessment for the building including a reset on the alarm panel
4. reimburse her for the electricity used by contractors
5. pay her compensation for the poor service
In contact with us in February 2025, the resident confirmed all repairs have now been completed except for the light sensors and the front doors. She said issues with communication and ASB was ongoing, and she had not received a reimbursement for the electricity charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her mental health. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, the resident has been informed we cannot determine liability for damage to health and if she wishes to pursue this matter further she should seek legal advice. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance.

Record keeping

As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This has contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Request for a reimbursement of electricity charges

The issue around electricity charges was raised in the resident’s complaint escalation request. In its final complaint response on 16 May 2023 the landlord said it was “not unusual for contractors to use a communal power source to enable them to carry out works”.
The resident confirmed to the landlord that it had previously written to residents to confirm it would cover all costs associated with the fire safety works and these would not be chargeable through service charges.
The landlord did not dispute this. On 12 June 2023 it emailed the resident and apologised for the incorrect information. It confirmed it would cover the charges and ‘make an allowance’ when it completed the annual service charge accounts.
The landlord’s service charge policy states its annual accounts are sent out within 6 months of the year end to ensure all service charge costs incurred are recoverable. While it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the payment, it ought to have set the resident’s expectations by providing a timescale as to when she would receive the ‘allowance’. Consequently, on 21 February 2025 the resident told us she has not received an update as to when the ‘allowance’ will be paid. This was a communication failure of the landlord.

Communication issues around day-to-day repairs and fire safety works

We are unclear on what fire safety works were being completed in the building, however we have explored concerns about fire safety later in the report.
On 15 March 2023 when the resident raised concerns about the lack of communication around day-to-day repairs, the landlord said it would send weekly updates “from now on”. This was reasonable, however when the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023 she said no further updates had been received.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not explain why the updates had stopped but instead committed to monthly meetings from May 2023. This was an appropriate suggestion, however in the resident’s escalation request on 19 April 2024, she asked when the meeting would be as she said she had not received any communication about it. This was unreasonable, especially when the complaint was about the lack of communication.
The landlord said it would provide a communication chart for the noticeboard. The resident confirmed she received an individual copy but said it did not include the information requested by the residents. She sent the landlord a photograph to show a copy had not displayed on the noticeboard as promised. This was a communication failure of the landlord and while the resident raised it in her complaint escalation, the landlord failed to address it in its final complaint response. This was unreasonable.
Three weeks after the final complaint response, the resident highlighted the landlord’s lack of actions and response to some of her complaint points including the communication for the noticeboard, the monthly meetings, and outstanding repairs. She asked for an update.
The landlord advised the resident that weekly updates and monthly meetings would not be taking place as it had several sites and needed to be consistent. The landlord had made previous commitments to residents to improve communication, and this set the residents expectations. The landlord then failed to follow up on its commitment but did not communicate this until it was raised by the resident. While it said it understood this contradicted a previous agreement and would write to residents to confirms its position, there is no evidence it did. This was unreasonable.
It also agreed it would send contact details for individuals and teams to all residents once a recruitment exercise had finished. This was appropriate as it fulfilled a promise to the resident, but again there is no evidence the landlord provided this. This was unreasonable and was a further communication failure.
In terms of fire safety works the resident said the landlord had agreed to provide regular updates on the website, but only 2 had been posted between June 2022 and January 2023, and they did not provide enough detail. The landlord acknowledged that prior to January 2023 the updates had been limited. From the evidence seen, prior to the complaint, the website was the only source of providing updates to the residents. It was therefore unreasonable that these were not regularly provided.
The landlord advised the website updates would continue, and letters would be sent to residents. This was appropriate as it would keep all residents updated, however there is no evidence the landlord did this. This is a further communication failure. Further, as the work was completed prior to this investigation, we are unable to assess if the website updates increased following the complaint.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of communication around day-to-day repairs and fire safety works. This is because the landlord:
1. made several commitments that were not fulfilled or explained
2. contradicted agreements made with the resident which demonstrated a lack of collaborative working
3. did not identify any learning to improve communication
4. did acknowledge the time spent by the resident pursuing updates
5. did not consider how it could share updates with residents regarding day-to-day repairs

Reports of communal repairs

The landlord’s repair policy states it would attend emergencies (where there is immediate danger or risk to health and safety) within 4 hours to make safe, and repair within 24 hours unless exceptional circumstances prevent this. It states routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days.
On 28 March 2023 the resident referred to repairs that had been reported previously, including broken windows, fire exit doors, the front door, lift buttons, and no lighting on the ground floor at the rear of the building. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm when these repairs were first reported by this or any resident in the building. This is a record keeping failure and means we are unable to assess if the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations.
In its complaint acknowledgement, the landlord confirmed the fire exit doors had been repaired on 15 March 2023 following the resident’s email on 14 March 2023, and the main front door had been repaired on 27 March 2023. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with policy.
In its stage 1 complaint response and following a site visit on 1 April 2023, the landlord said it had raised repairs for the broken windows and the lift buttons. This was appropriate but the landlord did not acknowledge when these were first reported or explain why they had not been completed previously. This was unreasonable and meant it did not identify any service failures or learning.
Further, as the landlord is responsible for the completion of all repairs, it was a failure that it did not commit to monitoring these repairs. As such, in her complaint escalation, the resident highlighted several repairs that remained outstanding from her original complaint, (lift buttons and the window) plus several others that she stated had been raised months ago (missing stair tread and broken light sensors on her floor).
In its final complaint response, the landlord provided dates for some of the repairs and confirmed it would update her on the dates for the others. It demonstrated learning from the initial complaint and said it would monitor the repairs through to completion to avoid delays. This was appropriate and showed a commitment to fulfilling its repair obligations. It identified service failures with orders being sent to the wrong contractor, advised learning had been given to the contact centre and said it continued to make a ‘number of changes’ to improve the services. This was appropriate.
Despite the commitment to monitor the repairs, the resident had to invest more time in pursuing the repairs beyond the final complaint response, namely, the broken lift buttons, and the window and light sensors on the sixth floor. This was unreasonable and should not have been necessary. She also pursued her concern that the repairs were taking longer than the published 28 days.
The landlord told the resident the light sensors in the corridor were working as expected. The resident challenged this and told the landlord the lights were on all the time rather than only coming on via the sensor. She said this would be affecting electricity service charges. The landlord said it would refer the matter to the appropriate team but there is no evidence of any further update. In contact with us in February 2025 the resident confirmed this repair was still outstanding, 2 years since it was first reported. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not complied with its repair policy and obligations.
Although the delayed repairs had no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord did not recognise or apologise for the time and effort spent chasing it for updates, some of which was avoidable if the repairs had been managed in line with policy and commitments. This was unreasonable.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs. This is because the landlord did not:
1. complete repairs within its service standards
2. complete a thorough investigation so it could explain why repairs took so long to complete
3. follow up on its commitment to monitor repairs and this led to avoidable contact and inconvenience for the resident who had to chase the repairs
4. provide any further communication with the resident regarding the repairs that remained outstanding after the final complaint response, despite assurances it would
5. evidence any learning to prevent a recurrence of service failures
6. acknowledge the inconvenience, time and effort spent by the resident pursuing the outstanding repairs or offer any redress

Concerns around fire safety

The landlord has not provided a copy of its fire safety management procedure, or confirmation regarding service standards for fire safety specific repairs. In the absence of these, the Ombudsman has used the same timescales as per paragraph 27.
When the resident raised concerns about the misuse and vandalism of the fire alarm and reported faults on the fire alarm panel, she said residents were unsure if the alarms would sound if there was a real fire. The landlord confirmed it was aware of the issue but said the repairs to the fire doors and the main door had resulted in no further incidents of misuse being reported.
The landlord did not respond to the concern about the fire alarm panel or what the faults meant in relation to fire safety or activation of the alarm. The lack of acknowledgement was not appropriate, as it did not show the landlord had listened to the concerns of the resident.
The resident also said the fire evacuation procedure on the website was wrong after it was re-categorised 2 years previous. In its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023 the landlord confirmed a full evacuation policy was in place and it had asked for the website to be changed.
The landlord’s response was appropriate however it did not demonstrate it had taken the resident’s concerns onboard by giving a timescale for the update to be done, or reassurance as to how it would prevent such miscommunication from happening again. This was unreasonable.
Despite the assurance the website would be changed, the resident raised the issue again in her complaint escalation on 19 April 2023. The landlord did not address this in its final complaint response. This was not appropriate. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states landlords should give instructions on what to do if a fire breaks out in the block. While it is acknowledged the landlord wrote to residents on 2 September 2023 to confirm the evacuation procedure, at the time of this report, the website was showing the building as ‘SP’ meaning ‘Stay Put.’ This was unreasonable.
In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the fire strategy was to be reviewed and would include the fire alarm system and evacuation strategy. It did not provide an update on the fire alarm panel faults. This was a further missed opportunity to address the issue that was raised in the initial complaint. This was unreasonable and did not provide a customer focussed resolution.
After the final complaint response, the resident asked for an update on the fire strategy review. The landlord said it would be reviewed after it had received the safety certificate following the completion of the fire safety works. It said residents would be notified once the review had been completed, but there is no evidence to confirm this happened. This was unreasonable and was a communication failure by the landlord.
In relation to the fire panel and the faults displayed, this was raised by the resident as an issue on 28 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the disruption caused by activation of the alarm but did not provide an update on the resetting of the panel or reassure the resident that it was working as expected. This was unreasonable.
The resident raised the issue again on 16 June 2023. The landlord advised a Fire Safety Officer had visited the building that day and an engineer was required. The evidence seen shows the resident contacted the fire service who on 16 June 2023 confirmed a Fire Safety Inspector had contacted the landlord to identify the level of risk and action to be taken. It confirmed a part was required, but the fault was low risk, and the system was fully operational. It confirmed it was content the actions to resolve the matter were appropriate and the fault did not increase the risk to residents. While it was reassuring to hear this from the fire service, it was unreasonable that the resident felt the need to take this route.
We have not seen the evidence which confirms when the faults were repaired, however the landlord told the resident the panel had been reset in July 2024. The resident challenged this. She told the landlord a fault light was still showing but was advised it was fully operational, and the light was an issue in an individual flat. While the evidence suggests the fire panel was working as expected despite the fault light, the timescale to repair this was not appropriate as it was not in line with the repair policy. The resident told us, the panel was not reset fully until November 2024.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around fire safety. This is because the landlord:
1. did not address the concerns about the faults on the fire panel at either stage of the complaint process
2. acknowledged the misuse of the alarms was unacceptable, but it did not reassure the resident that the alarms were working as expected at either stage of the complaint
3. took too long to reset the fire alarm panel
4. did not update the website with the correct fire evacuation process, then after it said it would, it failed to monitor this and at the time of the report the website was still publishing the incorrect information
5. has not evidenced that it has updated the resident with the outcome of the fire strategy review
6. did not recognise the inconvenience, time and effort spent by the resident in pursuing these matters

ASB and request for CCTV

The landlord’s ASB policy states it would:
1. respond positively to any reports of ASB with the level of urgency proportionate to the nature of complaint
2. signpost complainants to the most appropriate agency when the perpetrator is not one of its customers
3. carry out thorough investigations of all reports of ASB in line with the ASB procedure, including a risk assessment on each case
When the resident reported ASB, vandalism and the discovery of 2 knives to the landlord on 14 March 2023, it said it had opened an ASB case, and the information had been sent to the ‘relevant person’ to contact her. There is no evidence of the ASB case, or any actions taken as a result. This was not appropriate as it was not line with policy.
Between 15 and 17 March 2023, the landlord repaired the locks on the fire exits, repaired all the communal doors, ordered a new lock for the front door, contacted the police, asked for increased patrols, and removed the knives. It said it would review the situation regularly and look for further security measures if required, however its initial priority was to make access limited to residents and only agencies who needed access.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrated a positive reaction to the incidents reported. However, in the resident’s complaint on 28 March 2023, she reported further incidents which included the misuse and vandalism of the fire alarm, and lift buttons on several floors. She said she had provided dates and times of when incidents occurred and asked the landlord to review CCTV footage, but it had not contacted her about it.
She said the front doors were stuck on open so anyone could enter the building, and this was contributing to ASB. She said new doors had been fitted following a previous complaint, but they took too long to close and attracted tailgaters. She said she did not feel safe not knowing who could be in the building.
The landlord confirmed it had shared CCTV footage with the police, but it was unable to identify anyone. It confirmed the repairs to the fire exit and the additional patrols by the police. It advised it was looking for quotes for additional CCTV but confirmed it would need to go through a consultation process due to the associated costs. This was an appropriate response.
The resident reported 3 further incidents of non-residents accessing the building in her complaint escalation. She asked the landlord to take more action and said CCTV was needed on communal landings. She repeated that she and other residents did not feel safe entering or leaving the building.
In its final complaint response on 16 May 2023 the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident and listened to her concerns and suggestions. It addressed each suggestion and said:
1. it had sought a quote for a security firm to provide cover for several nights for a short period following which it would assess the success
2. it was obtaining quotes and exploring ways to secure the building using magnetic locks which would restrict access via fobs
3. it was liaising with a contractor regarding the closing time on the front doors
4. it would look at additional CCTV once the other options had been explored
5. it had contacted the local homeless team about the rough sleepers
6. it would keep her updated
The landlord’s response was reasonable and showed it had made progress against several of the resident’s suggestions. Although a security firm carried out nightly patrols from June 2023, there is no evidence of any further update to the resident and she was inconvenienced by having to chase the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable after the landlord told her it would keep her updated.
The landlord said there was ‘not one simple immediate solution’ that would stop non-residents accessing the building, but it was considering solutions. It confirmed no problems had been encountered during the nightly patrols and that it was working with partners and the crime prevention team to support in additional measures. It said these would be shared with residents once details were available, however the resident has told us no further updates have been received. This was unreasonable and was a further communication failure by the landlord.
While the resident told us she has not witnessed any more rough sleeping, she said the front doors continue to be a problem and are still attracting youths who are causing vandalism and painting graffiti on walls which she then must pay for through service charges.
In the evidence provided to us prior to our investigation, the landlord has acknowledged the ASB case was not opened and because of this, it did not follow its ASB policy. This was a significant failing by the landlord that was only highlighted because of our involvement, as such the landlord did not offer any redress to the resident for its failure to follow policy. This will be addressed within our orders.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour in the communal area and request for CCTV. It is not disputed the landlord did take some positive steps to help reduce the ASB, however the finding is because the landlord:
1. failed to follow its ASB policy when knives and ASB were reported
2. did not provide the resident with updates, as promised, on the suggestions made to reduce the ASB in the building
3. told the resident it had contacted the homelessness team, the police and crime prevention team, but did not provide the resident with any progress
4. failed to acknowledge the inconvenience and time taken by the resident in pursuing outcomes and updates or offer any redress

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy which states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), expects landlords to:
1. address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate
2. track outstanding actions and update the resident appropriately
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may offer a discretionary payment to resolve a complaint, which could include where the quality of service provided has fallen below its agreed standards.
The resident complained on 28 March 2023. It was acknowledged the following day and responded to on 11 April 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The landlord did not address all the issues raised, for example the faults on the fire panel, the repairs to the front door, the lack of communication about fire safety works. Further, it did not highlight its failure to comply with the ASB policy. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the complaint policy or the Code.
The landlord did not demonstrate a thorough investigation at either stage into why it had not completed the repairs when first reported. It confirmed several repairs and other actions regarding communication and updates, but did not monitor these. As such, repairs were not completed, and updates were not provided. This was not appropriate as it was not line with the policy or the Code. This failed to satisfy the resident who spent more time and effort escalating her complaint due to the landlord’s “inadequate response.”
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 April 2023 and the landlord provided its final complaint response on 6 May 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The landlord apologised for several service failures including the lack of communication and delays in repairs. It confirmed the service had not been to standard and the matters would be addressed internally and externally, yet no further information was given. This provided little reassurance to the resident that the landlord had taken learning from the service failures identified. Further it did not offer any redress as per its compensation policy.
Further, the landlord failed to use the complaint process to identify failures in its own complaint investigations. For example, it did not highlight its lack of response to concerns regarding the faults on the fire alarm panel, or that it had not logged the ASB when it said it would. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate a thorough investigation.
For the reasons above, a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling is appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of electricity charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communication issues around day-to-day repairs and major works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in the communal area and request for CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident which acknowledges the failures highlighted within this report
2. pay the resident £475 in compensation for the following:
  1. £75 for the time, effort, and inconvenience to the resident chasing updates regarding communication
  2. £100 for the inconvenience and time spent by the resident chasing the outstanding repairs
  3. £100 for the time spent by the resident pursuing the landlord for fire safety issues and updates
  4. £100 for the impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy and the time and trouble pursuing updates
  5. £100 for the impact on the resident and time and effort spent chasing the landlord due to its complaint handling failures
  6. the compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord should provide us with evidence to confirm the payment has been made
3. inspect the following issues and provide us and the resident with the findings and a timescale for any repairs:
  1. the closing mechanism and timings for the front doors which is a contributing factor to ongoing ASB
  2. the light sensors on the sixth floor
4. provide all residents with an update on the fire strategy for the building
5. provide us and the resident with confirmation that the website has been updated to reflect the correct evacuation process
6. provide us and the resident with confirmation when it will apply the allowance for the electricity charges

Recommendations

The landlord should consider how it can keep all residents updated with delays to communal repairs required to the building.
The landlord should provide a contact number next to the fire alarm panel for residents and the fire service to call if the panel needs resetting.
The landlord should provide the resident with an update on the suggestions she made regarding solutions to improving ASB.