Livin Housing Limited (202121611)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121611

Livin Housing Limited

22 March 2024

(Updated following review 23 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the loft insulation.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of decoration.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water pooling in the garden.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the kitchen floor.
   5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water flooding in the wet room.
   6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   7. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. He moved into the property in September 2021. The property is a new build, 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records note the resident has mobility issues. The resident told this Service he also has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He also said he has accepted an offer of accommodation from another landlord and will be moving shortly.
3. The landlord identified a number of issues with the property during the handover inspection on 6 September 2021. This included noting the paintwork in the kitchen, hallway and window reveals was uneven. The resident raised concerns about the standard of decorating on 9 September 2021 and said he wanted the work doing before he moved in. He asked the landlord to use clean dust sheets whilst doing the work. He was given the keys to the property on 11 September 2021. The decorating was completed in October 2021.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2021 and said the floor in the wet room had not been laid correctly and water flooded the toilet area. He also said the kitchen floor was damaged. The landlord arranged for the shower curtain to be moved on 21 October 2021, but the resident refused the work. This was because it would make the shower area too small for 2 people as he needed help with bathing. He also said the decorating was atrocious and there was a loose flag stone on the drive. He reported the ceiling in the bedroom was water stained on 24 December 2021.
5. The landlord fitted a shower screen on 4 January 2022 and replaced the kitchen floor covering on 28 February 2022. The resident made a complaint on 7 March 2022. He said the landlord had failed to address his request in a reasonable timescale and this was causing him anxiety and stress. He also said the workmanship was ‘‘shoddy’’ and it felt like the property was still being built. The landlord treated the complaint as an informal complaint and responded the same day. It redecorated the walls and ceilings on 15 March 2022. It also repainted the internal doors. The loft insulation was replaced on 17 March 2022.
6. The resident made a number of reports of dogs barking, children screaming and playing ball games between May 2022 and June 2022. He also said his neighbour had threatened him. The landlord confirmed on 14 June 2022 that it would not take any action against his neighbour.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 July 2022. It said:
   1. It took slightly longer than expected to replace the loft insulation. It upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
   2. It attended on 17 February 2022 to redecorate the walls and ceiling but was turned away. This was because the resident wanted more painting doing than was agreed. The decorating was completed in March 2022. It did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
   3. It inspected the resident’s garden in January 2022. It found the garden levels were satisfactory and it was not waterlogged. No remedial works were required and the resident should install paving to resolve the issue. The resident was also told the garden was his responsibility. It did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
   4. It visited on 9 March 2022 to inspect the paving levels on the driveway and found it met its development standards. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld, although it offered to reinspect the driveway. This was because it could not undertake a full inspection given the resident’s car was parked on the drive at the time of the visit.
   5. It investigated the resident’s reports of noisy children and dogs parking. It found the noise levels were not unreasonably excessive or considered to be ASB. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
   6. The police had confirmed no further action would be taken in relation to the incident involving his neighbour. It had, however, opened an ASB case and the housing officer would be in touch. Given this, it could not reach a conclusion on this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
   7. It had inspected the floor in the wet room and it was fitted to the required standard. It agreed to fit a shower screen in recognition of the resident’s medical needs. There were delays in fitting the shower screen because it was a bespoke order. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
   8. It was unable to remove the paint marks on the kitchen floor and agreed to replace it. The new flooring blistered because it was fitted on top of the existing floor. This was done at the resident’s request. The flooring needed to be lifted, re-screed and new flooring laid. This was done on 28 February 2022. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was upheld.
   9. It would offer £100 compensation for the delay in replacing the loft insulation and the issues with the wet room.
8. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 25 July 2022. He said the offer of compensation was an insult and he would now have to move. This was because of the toxic environment that had been created by the landlord with his neighbour. He also said the decorating was done to a poor standard and the decorators had damaged his headboard. In addition, the resident noted the garden was flooded and there were still issues with the parking bay. He also said he had been scalded by the shower.
9. The landlord sought clarification from the resident on 25 July 2022 and 11 August 2022 about which parts of the stage 1 complaint he was unhappy with and what outcomes he was seeking. It said it had referred his complaint about the damaged headboard to its development team and it would not investigate his claims of scalding. This was because he had submitted a personal injury claim. The resident told the landlord on 14 August 2022 that his neighbour had assaulted him.
10. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 August 2022. It said it had received over 50 emails from the resident since it had closed his stage 1 complaint and it had been difficult to conclude what aspects of the complaint he wanted investigating. Given this, it had investigated his complaint about the decoration and garden. it said:
    1. The resident was responsible for decorating his home and it would not do any further painting of the internal doors. On this basis, it would not investigate the matter further.
    2. The resident noted on the 17 March 2022 that he would touch up the ceiling paint work as he did not want any more trades people in his house. On this basis, it would not investigate the matter further.
    3. It inspected the garden on several occasions and was satisfied the garden drained after heavy rainfall. It had also advised the resident to install paving stones in front of the shed. On this basis, it would not investigate the matter further.
    4. The resident never raised a complaint about the damaged headboard and it had referred the matter to its development team. The resident needed to provide evidence for the claim to be considered.
    5. The resident had a ‘live’ personal injury claim that was with its insurers. As such, it would not investigate his claim of scalding or offer compensation.
    6. The offer of compensation was fair, reasonable and in accordance with its compensation policy.
    7. New issues raised by the resident had been reported.
11. The resident told the landlord on 23 August 2022 that he was not pursuing his personal injury claim.
12. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 3 October 2022. He said the landlord ignored his complaints of ASB and had not kept him updated. As a result, the ASB escalated and led to him being assaulted. He said he wanted compensation for the damaged headboard and for being burnt by the hot water from the shower.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the loft insulation.

13. This Service appreciates the resident moved into a new build property and he would have been disappointed with the number of defects he identified within a short period of moving in. This Service also recognises that from time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified in the initial build. As works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, it is accepted that matters were to an extent out of the landlord’s control. In such circumstances, however, this Service would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was being prolonged.
14. The housing records confirm the resident reported a damp patch on the bedroom ceiling on 24 December 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 4 January 2022 and arrange a job to be raised following the reopening of the office after the christmas closure period. This was in accordance with its development procedure manual. This says it will report any defects identified during the defect period and which are a result of poor workmanship or a fault with the component to the contractor. It also says the contractor is required to rectify the problem within an acceptable period of time, although no timescales are given. Where the contractor does not do this, the landlord says it will give it 7 days to rectify the problem before organising for a different contractor to do the work.
15.  It was appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to attend on 10 January 2022, although the resident would not allow them access. The resident said this was because he did not want dirty stepladders on his carpet. A further visit was arranged for 18 January 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 20 January 2022 that the loft space was ‘‘sweating’’ due to high temperatures inside the property and cold temperatures outside. It was also appropriate for the landlord to confirm it was reviewing the situation and would notify the resident what works were required as soon as the specification had been agreed. The housing records confirm the landlord told the resident on 24 January 2022 that the work had been issued to a roofing contractor.
16. The roofing contractor attended on 25 January 2022 and confirmed the loft insulation was packed tight against the truss tray and this was restricting ventilation. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 28 January 2022 that it was liaising with its contractors to confirm the next steps. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 January 2022 and said there were wet patches on the ceiling.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 30 January 2022 that additional roof vents needed to be fitted. These were fitted on 24 February 2022. The landlord was unable to reinspect the loft space and insulation on 9 March 2022 as there were no clean ladders on site at the time of the inspection. This was a missed opportunity. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the loft insulation at this point. This was done on 17 March 2022.
18. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its stage 1 complaint response that there was a delay in replacing the loft insulation and to uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It clarified in its final complaint response that its offer of £100 compensation included £50 for the issues with the loft insulation. This was in accordance with its compensation policy.
19. In summary, the landlord acted on the resident’s report of water stains on the ceilings. It liaised with its contractor in a timely manner and kept the resident updated. It also arranged for the roof space to be inspected and for the work to be carried out. There was a delay in contacting its contractor initially, but this was due to its office being closed over the christmas period. This was acknowledged by the landlord and compensation was offered. In this case, this Service finds there has been reasonable redress by the landlord with regard to the replacement of the loft insulation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of decoration.

20. The housing records confirm the property was inspected and a list of snags were identified during the visit on 6 September 2021. This was in accordance with the landlord’s development procedure manual. This says properties should be inspected approximately 14 days prior to the handover to check items on the snagging list are relatively minor and can be completed prior to handover. The snagging list included reference to uneven paint finish in the hallway, kitchen and window reveals. There was no reference to the internal doors being poorly painted. There is no evidence the issues identified with the standard of decorating were resolved prior to the keys being handed over to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for him.
21. The housing records confirm the resident raised concerns about the standard of decorating on 9 and 11 September 2021. He said the window reveals and internal doors were poorly painted. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer these concerns on to its contractor and for an appointment to be booked to inspect the decoration. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it would arrange for a decorator to undertake the work if required. The housing records confirm a decorator attended on 23 September 2021.
22. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to attend on 12 October 2021 to reinspect the decoration given the resident remained unhappy with the work that was caried out. It was reasonable for the contractor to return to repaint 1 internal door. This demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident.
23. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the condition of the ceilings on 9 March 2022 after the issues with the loft had been identified. It agreed to stain block the ceilings and redecorate the walls in the bedrooms, living room, bathroom and kitchen. This was appropriate. It also agreed to paint the internal doors. It said it did this even though the doors met national home building council (NHBC) requirements. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. The work was completed on 15 March 2022.
24. In summary, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issues with the decorating before the resident moved in. It did, however, take steps to resolve the matter. This included arranging for a decorator to return to the property on a number of occasions. It also arranged for the ceilings and walls to be redecorated once the issue with the loft space had been identified. It did this in a reasonable timescale. Given the above, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the decoration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water pooling in the garden.

25. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord his garden was waterlogged on 4 January 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the garden to be inspected on 5 January 2022. This confirmed the garden was not waterlogged. It did, however, note the garden was muddy. It said this was because the resident had not laid any flag stones to the new shed he had erected. It was reasonable for the landlord to recommend he did this.
26. The landlord confirmed its position in writing to the resident on 14 January 2022. It also said the maintenance of the garden was the resident’s responsibility. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and was in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also helped manage the resident’s expectations. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 18 January 2022 that the garden was inspected by the NHBC and had been signed off as complying with its technical standards.
27. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to reinspect the garden following receipt of a video from the resident on 3 March 2022. This visit took place on 9 March 2022 and concluded there was no evidence the garden was waterlogged. The landlord confirmed its position in writing to the resident on the same day and noted the ‘‘natural drainage in the garden meets requirements.’’ It was appropriate for the landlord to set out its position in its stage 1 complaint response on 22 July 2022. This included noting that the maintenance of the garden was the resident’s responsibility.
28. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports that his garden was waterlogged. This included undertaking inspections and advising him of his responsibilities for the garden. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water pooling in his garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the kitchen floor.

29. The housing records confirm the resident reported there was paint on his kitchen floor on 21 October 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a cleaner to attend to try and remove the paint. The resident advised the landlord on 18 November 2021 that he would arrange for the kitchen to be cleared once his shed had been erected. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to make contact once the shed was in place so it could arrange for the cleaners to attend. The landlord confirmed on 6 December 2021 that an appointment had been booked for 20 December 2021.
30. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the cleaner not turning up at the appointed time and for not bringing the appropriate equipment when they did attend on 21 December 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the flooring on 4 January 2022 and to confirm the outcome of its investigation into why the cleaner did not turn up at the agreed time and with the right equipment.
31. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of the 17 January 2022 in which he noted the new flooring would need to be cut and ‘slipped under’ the fridge freezer and washing machine. He said this was because only his wife and him were available to move the white goods. This was a missed opportunity. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed whether this option was appropriate and to assess if it could offer any assistance with moving the white goods.
32. The housing records confirm the resident reported the new flooring was ‘bubbling’ on 25 January 2022. The landlord confirmed on 2 February 2022 that the new flooring had been fitted on top of the existing flooring at the request of the resident. The resident disputed this claim and said the contractors decided to proceed with the work. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the flooring and to cover the costs of removing the white goods. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. The flooring was replaced on 28 February 2022.
33. The landlord upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 complaint response. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its contractors should have sought approval before fitting the new floor and recognised it caused undue inconvenience. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology. It clarified in its final complaint response that its offer of £100 compensation included £50 for the flooring issues (the stage 1 response said the £50 was for the issues with the wet room).
34. In summary, the landlord took steps to resolve the issues with the kitchen floor and kept the resident updated. There were delays in completing the works, but this was due to the resident’s request to wait until the shed had been erected. The landlord did not initially take account of the resident’s needs when it asked him to remove the white goods. The new flooring was incorrectly laid and resulted in it ‘bubbling.’ The offer of £50 compensation was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Given these findings, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the kitchen floor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water flooding in the wet room.

35. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 4 October 2021 that the wet room was flooding. He said this was because of the position of the shower curtain. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit on 21 October 2021 to reposition the shower curtain, although the work was not carried out. This was because the resident said it would make the shower area too small for 2 people as he needed help with bathing. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to visit the resident on 26 October 2021, no information was provided to this Service confirming the visit took place or what the outcome was. It is, however, evident that the landlord agreed to install a shower screen around this point in time. This demonstrated the landlord recognised the resident’s specific needs and wanted to put things right for him.
36. The landlord told the resident on 17 November 2021 that it was waiting for a response from its contractor regarding the shower screen. A further update was provided on 24 November 2021. The landlord told the resident on 3 December 2021 that the shower screen was not a standard product and it needed to be specially made. Further updates were provided on 6 December 2021 and 20 December 2021. The landlord confirmed on 21 December 2021 that the shower screen would be fitted on 5 January 2022. The new shower screen was fitted on this date.
37. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response that it had inspected the wet room floor and found that both the shower tray and floor were fitted to the required standard. It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge there were delays in fitting the shower screen. It said the delays were outside its control. This element of the resident’s complaint was not upheld. Whilst it offered £50 compensation, the landlord later confirmed in its final complaint response that this was for the issues with the kitchen floor.
38. In summary, the landlord recognised the resident’s specific needs and agreed to fit a bespoke shower screen. It kept the resident updated and chased the contractor on numerous occasions. Although the landlord accepted there had been delays in fitting the shower screen, it did not offer appropriate redress in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. Given these findings, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water flooding in the wet room.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

39. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances. On receipt of reports of alleged ASB, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
40. The landlord’s ASB policy says it does not consider day to day noise or children playing as ASB. Verbal abuse, threats and incidents of violence are classified as ASB. There is no reference to dogs barking in the ASB policy, although the landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is a breach for residents to allow their pets to cause a nuisance or annoyance to others. The landlord’s website tells residents to report crimes to the police.
41. The housing records confirm the resident reported children screaming and dogs barking on 8 May 2022. He contacted the landlord on 3 further occasions over the next month. He said the dogs were constantly barking and he found the situation stressful. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these reports. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. This says it will acknowledge all reports within 1 working day.
42. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 1 June 2022 following his report of verbal abuse from his neighbour, although no record of the visit has been provided to this Service. There is no evidence the landlord issued diary sheets, agreed an action plan with the resident or completed a risk assessment at this point. This is a failure of the landlord to adhere to its ASB policy. The landlord also failed to give due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act, 2010. The landlord knew of the resident’s disability and failed to carry out a risk assessment. Had the landlord done so it would have been in a better position to offer and signpost the resident to appropriate support.
43. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 14 June 2022 and to confirm it had reviewed the information he had recently provided. Whilst it said it would not be taking any action against his neighbour, it did not provide an explanation for its decision. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations, particularly in relation to the children playing in the garden which it did not consider to be ASB. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding the barking dogs, which could be considered a breach of the tenancy agreement. This meant it failed to gather evidence and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. As a result, the landlord did not use the early intervention tools available to it, including mediation and referrals to other agencies. It also failed to carry out a risk assessment, provide support or give due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010.
44. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s report that his neighbour had threatened him on 16 June 2022. It was also appropriate for it to recommend he kept a diary of any incidents that occurred and to confirm it would not take action against children playing in the garden. This was in accordance with its ASB policy. The housing records confirm the landlord liaised with the council’s ASB team about the threats made to the resident. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was taking a multiagency approach to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not, however, open an ASB case given the police did not issue a caution or deem a criminal sanction was necessary. This was a failure to adhere to the landlord’s policy. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he was unaware what support the landlord would provide him with. The landlord also failed to carry out its own investigation. There was an over-reliance on the police investigation which gathers evidence based on a criminal burden of proof, which is different to the burden of proof for breach of tenancy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have opened its own case, carry out a risk assessment with the resident and made its own conclusions.
45. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s further report of a barking dog on 20 July 2022.The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 14 August 2022 that his neighbour had assaulted him. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment and update the action plan. It was also appropriate for the landlord to interview the resident’s neighbour on the same day and provide the resident with an update. A formal warning was issued on 16 August 2022 in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
46. In summary, the landlord did not initially follow its ASB policy when the resident first reported ASB. It did not respond in a timely manner, carry out a risk assessment or use early intervention tools to try and resolve the problem. Neither did it manage the resident’s expectations or have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010. It did, however, later liaise with partner agencies and ask the resident to complete diary sheets. It also issued a tenancy warning. It is evident the situation had an impact on the resident, who told the landlord he found the situation stressful and it affected his mental health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

 

 

The handling of the resident’s complaint.

47. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 7 March 2022. This was treated as an ‘informal’ complaint by the landlord. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time, which also included an ‘informal’ stage.
48. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2022 following contact from this Service. It was appropriate for the landlord to meet the resident to seek to understand his concerns and the outcomes he was seeking. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Code.
49. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 July 2022 as the resident had advised via email on 25 March 2022 that he did not want the complaint to be escalated.
50. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 25 July 2022. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. It sought clarification from the resident on the reasons why he wished to escalate his complaint, even though he had already done so earlier that day. The landlord contacted the resident again on 11 August 2022 and asked him to provide clarity on the nature of his complaint. It also said it would close the complaint if no response was received, but the resident provided clarity on the same day.
51. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 August 2022. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said the resident had not provided clear answers to the questions it had raised and therefore focused on his complaints about the decorating and garden.
52. Whilst the landlord set out its position regarding the decorating and garden in its final complaint response, it said it would not investigate either of these complaints. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Code. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident his personal injury claim was with its insurers and as such, was not being treated as a complaint. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the resident’s report of damage to his headboard as a new complaint rather than refer it to its development team. There is no evidence the landlord verbally updated the resident following the completion of its investigation.
53. In summary, the landlord did follow its own complaints policy and although it was not aware of the resident’s health issues, it did offer reasonable adjustments. The landlord has highlighted that the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable at times and due to excessive contact, made it challenging to keep track on the complaint issues. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water flooding the wet room.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the kitchen floor.
58. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the replacement of the loft insulation.
59. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the standard of decoration.
60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water pooling in the garden.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

61. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
62. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £350 to the resident. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of ASB.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident with regard to its handling of the issues with the wet room.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident with regard to its handling of the issues with the kitchen floor.
    1. £50 previously offered to the resident for the kitchen flooring, if this has not already been paid.

63. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with this Service.

Recommendations

64. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should clarify its position with the resident with regard to his complaint about the damaged headboard.
65. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the delays in replacing the loft insulation, if not already done so.