London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214474

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 February 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the replacement bedroom flooring;
2. the complaint, including compensation offered.

Background

This Service is aware that at the time of the resident’s complaint to the landlord in October 2022, she had been decanted from her property into temporary accommodation. This was “due to a flood and subsequential damp and mould works” being carried out by the landlord to the resident’s property. These matters were not part of this complaint and as such are for context only and do not form part of this investigation.
The resident has had an assured tenancy agreement since 11 January 2016, for a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord had recorded on its systems that priority repairs should be carried out for the resident in relation to heating and hot water. It also recorded that the resident suffered from specific medical conditions.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for floor coverings. There would be an exception to floor coverings that had been provided by the landlord in bathrooms and kitchens.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it “expects customers to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions and insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc.” Its policy also states that it may offer compensation when:
1. it fails to process or provide a response to a complaint within agreed response times, and when it does not comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. its mistake or failure caused a customer distress and inconvenience.
3. the resident has had to spend unnecessary time and effort getting it to put things right.
4. damage or alleged injury occurs because of its contractor’s negligence, it will refer the issue to its Insurance Team.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states:
1. It will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when a complaint was recorded.
2. It will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
3. When carrying out a stage 2 investigation it will engage with its staff member that carried out its stage 1 investigation, to “understand the issues from their perspective.” It will also review all previous investigations, to ensure it has met its responsibilities.
4. It does not consider complaints where there are court proceedings made against it, including disrepair cases, or where there is legal liability such as insurance claims.

Summary of events

The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2022 about the replacement laminate flooring that it had fitted in her bedroom. The landlord had agreed to replace the resident’s flooring, after she reported its contractor had caused damage to her carpet while installing new windows. It has not been evident to this Service when the flooring was replaced, although the resident sent an email to the landlord on 12 July 2021, confirming “I’ve had a look at the photos of the flooring and I’m satisfied with it”.
In the resident’s complaint she said she had “felt pressured to accept the flooring that was put down.” The resident said she had told a member of the landlord’s staff she did not like the flooring, and their response had been “it looked nice and we are not changing it.” She said that the landlord’s contractor had taken her to select the replacement flooring, but it had not fitted the one that she had chosen. The landlord recorded that the resident had asked that the flooring it had subsequently laid be replaced with the flooring that she had specifically chosen. The resident’s contact was recorded as a stage 1 complaint under the landlord’s complaints process.
While the landlord recorded that it provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 October 2022, it has not been able to provide this Service with a copy of its full response. It has told this Service that this was due to it having not been saved on its systems correctly and it only had a partial response recorded. The resident has also been unable to provide a copy of the landlord’s response and she advised this Service that she had never received a stage 1 response from the landlord. From the partial response provided by the landlord, it is recorded that its stage 1 response said:
1. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
2. It believed a meeting had taken place with the resident and a member of its staff and “it did seem to get heated when the discussion concerning the flooring was raised.”
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day it recorded having sent its stage 1 complaint response. In her contact the resident advised of her dissatisfaction with its “response” and she asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident told the landlord that:
1. She had “felt pressured into accepting the type of flooring laid”, no further details were provided.
2. She was never given the option to choose between carpet or wooden flooring.
3. She wanted the flooring to be matched to the colour of the one she had previously chosen.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It said that it had tried to call her following her report of dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, but it had been unsuccessful in speaking with her. It asked the resident to “clarify and detail where the errors are in my response.” The landlord said that it wanted to ensure that any errors were documented to assist the stage 2 review that would be carried out.
Between 24 and 31 October 2022 there were at least 8 emails sent between the landlord and resident in relation to her complaint. The resident continued to raise her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her complaint as well as its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord told the resident that “the essence of your complaint remains the same in that you would like the flooring replaced again” and as the resident had provided no new evidence for it to consider, its response remained the same.
The landlord advised the resident on at least 3 occasions that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident said that she felt the landlord had been “dismissive without hearing” what she had wanted to say and made 2 requests for the landlord to call her back to discuss its response. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show the landlord called or spoke with the resident following her requests to discuss its response.
On 22 December 2022, the resident asked this Service to contact the landlord on her behalf, as it had not provided its stage 2 complaint response. This Service contacted the landlord on 23 December 2022 and it was asked to provide the resident with its stage 2 response within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 December 2022 to confirm it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said that it would provide its response by 12 January 2023. Following its email, the resident asked the landlord to contact her to discuss her complaint on 2 further occasions, prior to it having sent its initial stage 2 response in January 2023. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show the landlord contacted the resident following her requests before providing its initial stage 2 complaint response.
On 4 January 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its initial stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It was aware the resident had a legal disrepair case with it and this had been raised in August 2022.
2. Its complaints policy did “not cover cases where a legal claim was made” against it. This included legal and insurance claims.
3. It had become apparent that the resident’s legal disrepair case and her stage 2 complaint were “interlinked”. It said that due to this it was unable to go into further detail as “this is an on-going legal disrepair case” and it was unable to provide further comment on these issues.
4. It “is important to note any matter concerning a financial claim for damaged goods or belongings falls outside the remit” of the landlord’s complaints process as it would be considered as a liability issue that was subject to an insurance investigation. It provided the details of where the landlord could issue a claim of negligence. The landlord was not clear in why it felt that it was important for the resident to “note” this.
5. The issues raised by the resident relating to customer service and how she said she had been spoken to by its staff, had been forwarded for internal investigation. Due to this it would be unable to provide any further comment other than to apologise for any offence caused.
6. It offered redress by way of:
  1. £50 – for the delay in it responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  2. £40 as a good-will gesture and an apology – for any offence caused.
  3. £30 – time and effort taken by the resident “to resolve this issue.”
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord on the same day and asked for it to return her call. She advised that she did not understand its response and wished to discuss it further. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show the landlord called the resident back as she had requested or that it explained its response to her.
The resident contacted the landlord on a further 2 occasions on 16 and 18 January 2023. In her communication on 16 January 2023 she asked for her complaint not to be closed. In her communication of 18 January 2023 she asked for a further review of her complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord advised the resident on the same day, if she remained dissatisfied her next steps should be to contact this Service. It said that while it accepted its advice may be frustrating, it was “unable to be of further assistance due to the aforementioned legal casework.” The resident advised the landlord on the same day that she was told a “review of the whole case” would be carried out, as she had been dissatisfied with the amount of compensation she had been offered. The landlord’s response to the resident said that it “cannot comment further as advised previously.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 January 2023 and asked that it clarified whether it would still be paying the compensation it had offered. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s enquiry.
On 20 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for a second time. She advised that the flooring issue in her complaint did not form part of her disrepair claim. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord replied or acknowledged the resident’s email.
This Service contacted the landlord on 20 January 2023 and asked it to re-issue its stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 3 February 2023. The landlord was advised that the reasons for this was due to guidance provided in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that “if the landlord relies on legal proceedings as a reason not to engage the complaints procedure, it must set out a detailed explanation to the resident of why the matter is not suitable for its complaint process.” It also advised that the resident has the right to challenge this decision by bringing their complaint to the Ombudsman.
Following its receipt of this Service’s communication, the landlord carried out further internal investigations. Its internal communications confirmed that the resident’s claim of damage had been made after its contractor had installed new windows to her property. It said that its contractor had agreed to cover the cost of replacing the resident’s carpet and the replacement flooring was not included in the legal disrepair case. It went on to say that it had taken up the resident’s carpet and other flooring within the property, as there had been high reading of damp in the floors. The landlord said that following this it fitted new laminate flooring in the bedroom, and 2 other rooms also. It confirmed the resident “at first queried the colour but then out [sic] in an email to me that she accepted what was put down.” The landlord confirmed that the work had been inspected following the installation, but it did not provide any further information of the inspection.
On 2 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that the flooring laid in her property was “unacceptable it has gaps in it my original flooring was not laid as such poor standard I have asked that it is taken up and replaced,” she went on to say that she “could not and would not accept it.” There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the resident’s contact.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord provided its revised stage 2 complaint response. In its response it said:
1. It wanted to clarify that the resident’s complaint was raised regarding the replacement of her bedroom flooring, which originated from “alleged damages caused by the engineers” installing new windows to the resident’s property.
2. It clarified the areas of complaint that it said were being addressed as part of the legal disrepair case and where a separate complaint had been recorded and responded to at stage 1 of its complaints process. It clarified the bedroom flooring was outside of the disrepair claim.
3. Its contractor that installed the windows, had agreed to cover the cost of the resident’s flooring as a “gesture of good will, despite its original condition.” Although the landlord did not provide its reasons for having made this decision.
4. Due to high damp readings, the carpet in the bedroom and laminate flooring in the hallway needed to be taken up, and following this new laminate was installed. It said that carpet had not been considered at the time, due to separate damp and mould issues within the property. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord had previously discussed its reasons with the resident for not offering to replace her carpet with another carpet on a “like for like” basis.
5. Its contractor took the resident to “select a colour” of laminate flooring. Its internal communications advised the flooring chosen was “too costly” and an alternative would be sourced that was the closest match. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the resident had been made aware of this prior to its revised stage 2 response.
6. It had written confirmation of the resident’s acceptance of the laminate flooring that had been installed.
7. While the resident advised that she felt “pressured and obligated to accept the flooring at the time,” the landlord said, “it could not account for a conversation that took place,” but it would never have been its intention to make the resident feel this way and it apologised that she had.
8. It had carried out some additional works to the laminate, where it had identified it had lifted, and confirmed it would not be carrying out any further works or replacing functioning flooring.
9. It upheld the previous offer made at stage 2 and awarded an additional £50 to apologise for “the mis-communication and poor decision letter provided.”
Following receipt of the landlord’s revised stage 2 response, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 3 and 7 February 2023, asking to be called back to discuss its response. She also advised that she had visited the property on 1 February 2023 and the flooring had been of “poor standard I cannot accept this.” The resident also advised of the “poor work and quality” of the installation of the replacement flooring. The landlord asked the resident on 7 February 2023 to confirm her availability for it to call on 8 February 2023. The resident advised of the delay in her having seen the landlord’s email and both agreed for the landlord to call her on 10 February 2023.
The landlord recorded that in the telephone conversation with the resident on 10 February 2023, it advised the resident that it would not be changing the laminate flooring it had installed. It said that it had written communication from the resident accepting the colour and style of the flooring, and it apologised that she had felt pressured to accept this. It said that it had re-iterated that the flooring had been installed as a “goodwill gesture” as her carpet had been in “very poor condition.”
Following the landlord’s conversation with the resident, she contacted this Service on the same day to advise of her discussion with the landlord. The resident said that the landlord had reviewed the case again and she did not agree with its decision not to change the flooring. She said that the flooring was in “very poor condition” and that there were gaps in the flooring also. The resident said that the landlord had referred her back to this Service.
From the evidence seen by this Service there were several internal communications between the landlord’s staff between 10 February 2023 and 6 March 2023. The landlord discussed the resident’s report of gaps in the laminate flooring it had laid, and asked whether a further inspection of the flooring could be carried out. The landlord’s last internal communication on 6 March 2023 asked if a member of its staff “would be able to attend to inspect the laminate again.” There has been no evidence seen by this Service following its internal email, to confirm if the landlord carried out a further inspection, or if it took any further action to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

Replacement bedroom flooring

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for floor coverings. This is with the exception of floor coverings that has been provided by the landlord in bathrooms and kitchens. Its compensation policy states that it “expects its customers to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions in insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc.” Its policy also includes that where damage or alleged injury occurs because of our or its contractor’s negligence, it will refer the issue to its Insurance Team. This includes damage to customers’ personal possessions.
The landlord advised the resident that its contractor had offered to cover the cost of the replacement of her carpet but said it had done so as a “goodwill gesture.” It has not been evident of what the landlord’s understanding of a goodwill gesture is or if it explained this to the resident. In its contractor having offered to cover the cost to replace the resident’s flooring, it showed it was accepting of its responsibility and suggests that it did not dispute the claim of damage that was made by the resident. If there was dispute, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed its compensation policy and forward the claim to be investigated by its insurance team.
It was reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have replaced her carpet “like for like”. The landlord did not dispute the resident was not given the option to select a replacement carpet. In its revised stage 2 complaint response it said that it had made the decision to lay laminate flooring due to “damp and mould” in the property. From the evidence seen by this Service the resident was aware the landlord would be replacing her carpet with laminated flooring, as she confirmed that she had selected her preferred option of laminate with its contractor. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have discussed any flooring options with the resident prior to making a decision on the type of flooring that would be laid. There has been no evidence seen that the landlord discussed the option of a replacement carpet or that it had explained why it would not look to replace the carpet “like for like”, prior to its revised stage 2 response. The landlord’s inadequate communications added to the resident’s frustrations.
There was dispute between the landlord and the resident regarding the purpose of the resident’s visit to the store with its contractor. The resident understood the visit to be for her to select the laminate flooring she wished to replace her carpet, while the landlord said that it was to select a colour of laminate flooring. There has been no evidence seen by this Service of the landlord having recorded any communications it had with the resident that confirms the purpose of the store visit. Clear written communication from the landlord to the resident about the store visit would have managed the resident’s expectations and mitigated further distress and inconvenience to the resident. This raised the resident’s expectations and when her chosen flooring was not laid, it led to her making a complaint.
There has been no evidence seen of the landlord having discussed budget limitations with the resident in relation to the flooring, prior to the landlord’s revised stage 2 complaint response. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have followed up any discussions and limitations on choice in writing. The landlord should have also recorded all communications it had with the resident to ensure a full audit trail of decisions and discussions were available. This would have ensured that it was able to manage the resident’s expectations from the beginning and was open in its decision making.
The resident confirmed in an email to the landlord said that she was satisfied with the flooring that had been laid in July 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to have accepted the resident’s email as confirmation of her satisfaction. However, 9 months later the resident advised the landlord that she was not satisfied with the flooring, as it had not been the laminate that she had chosen. She requested that it be removed, and her chosen flooring laid. The landlord said that it would not be removing and replacing the flooring as it was “fully functional.” Given the earlier written acceptance and the time passed, the landlord’s response was appropriate in all of the circumstances.
The resident further reported that the quality of the flooring and its installation was poor. She advised that there were gaps between the flooring in the way it had been laid. The landlord acted appropriately in asking for a further inspection of the flooring to be carried out, although this Service has not been advised of any further action taken by the landlord following this request.
In summary the landlord’s record keeping and communication with the resident have been inadequate and not of the standard that this Service would expect. The evidence provided to this Service by the landlord was limited in terms of detail and there appears to be significant gaps in its records. These gaps have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate its communications with the resident or what steps it had taken to manage the resident’s expectations and concerns. As a result this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement bedroom flooring. It is ordered to pay the resident £175 compensation.

Complaint handling, including compensation offered

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy states that it does not consider complaints where there are court proceedings made against it, including disrepair cases. It says that it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. It commits to reviewing all previous investigations to ensure it has met its responsibilities and it will engage with the stage 1 case handler to understand the issues raised by the resident when carrying out its stage 2 investigations.
The Ombudsman published a special report about the landlord in July 2023. This highlighted the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling which are relevant in this case. The report can be found on the Housing Ombudsman’s website. Following the special report the landlord provided a 3-year action plan providing its commitments for improvement. Due to the landlord’s commitments made to this Service, some orders that would have been made as part of this investigation, have not been duplicated in this determination but rely on the action plan for change.
The landlord has been unable to provide this Service with its full stage 1 response in relation to the resident’s original complaint. It said that it was unable to retrieve this from its systems due to it having been incorrectly saved. The partial response that was provided to this Service was dated 21 October 2022 and the resident disputes having received this. Its omission has meant that it has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process. It has demonstrated the landlord’s record keeping as unreliable and in need of review. A landlord should have a robust system in place to ensure a high standard of record keeping. It should be able to evidence a full audit trail of actions it has taken, and all communications it has had, both internally and with its residents.
From the evidence seen by this Service the resident told the landlord that she was not satisfied with its “response” on same day that the landlord said it provided its stage 1 response. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged 3 times that the resident’s complaint has been escalated. While it said that it had escalated her complaint, its communications to the resident at this time were confusing and dismissive. Its communications also implied that as the resident had provided no new evidence it would not accept a stage 2 request and its answer remained the same. The resident asked to discuss its response by telephone, and her requests were ignored. This was poor complaint handling as well as poor communication by the landlord that clearly caused the resident further distress. The landlord missed opportunities to discuss the resident’s concerns and potentially find a resolution.
It took the landlord 75 days to provide its initial stage 2 complaint response. There has been no evidence seen by this Service of the landlord having provided the resident with any updates or communications or reasons for the delay between the end of October 2022, when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, and the end of December 2022 when it sent its formal acknowledgement to the resident. This was only provided after the landlord was prompted by this Service to escalate the resident’s complaint. Its lack of action in progressing the resident’s complaint showed a disregard for her concerns and caused unacceptable delays in her progressing her complaint. The resident could not get a response from the landlord, and this added to the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord was not compliant with its complaints policy, or the Code.
The landlord’s initial stage 2 response was unacceptable. It was too quick to dismiss the resident’s complaint regarding her flooring, without carrying out a thorough investigation to establish the facts. The landlord did not show a genuine attempt to address the resident’s complaint and it did not show sincerity for its poor complaint handling or investigation. It was dismissive in accepting the resident’s complaint. This was evident in the landlord refusing to address the resident’s complaint about her flooring. The landlord said that her flooring was part of a “legal disrepair claim” and her stage 2 complaint were “interlinked”. Had it carried out a thorough investigation and engaged with other members of staff before providing its response, as its complaints policy states it will, it would have identified that the flooring was not part of any disrepair case.
The financial redress offered to the resident in the landlord’s initial stage 2 response was not proportionate to its failings. It did not consider the resident’s complaint about the flooring that had been installed, its own failings in its communications, the delays, or the distress and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident. Its inadequate response and poor investigation caused the resident to ask this Service to intervene again. This resulted in the landlord being asked to re-issue its stage 2 response, causing further delay in the resident receiving the final response.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. On several occasions when the resident asked the landlord to call her back to either discuss her complaint or its responses, the landlord ignored her requests and communications multiple times. This showed a disregard for the resident and was damaging to the landlord resident relationship. The resident had to chase the landlord repeatedly for a response or clarification from previous communications. When these were not received the resident felt she had no option but to ask this Service to intervene. This added to the resident’s frustrations and caused further inconvenience and distress. The time taken by the resident and this Service to prompt the landlord to provide an adequate response to her complaint is unacceptable.
The landlord’s revised stage 2 response identified the errors that had been made in the previous review. It also clarified the remit of the resident’s legal disrepair claim, and confirmed the flooring was not part of the claim. Its response was sincere and it apologised for the confusion that had been caused as a result of its initial stage 2 response, and for it having not communicated with the resident regarding her choice of laminate flooring. While it said that it upheld the financial redress that had been offered in its previous stage 2 response, it also increased this by a further £50 for its “miscommunications and poor decision letter.” While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and increase its offer of financial redress, the offer made was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident. It did not acknowledge its poor communications and the lack of call backs made to the resident, the distress and inconvenience that had been caused to her or review the offer it had made in relation to the time and trouble taken by the resident in trying to have her complaint resolved.
A positive complaint handling culture and thorough complaint investigations are crucial to demonstrating to residents that they can be heard, and the landlord wants to improve. The landlord did not demonstrate either, in its initial complaint responses to the resident. As a result it missed the opportunity to address the resident’s complaint at every stage of its investigations.
In summary the landlord’s handling of the resident complaint was inadequate throughout. It did not acknowledge or respond to multiple communications from the resident, and it could not evidence appropriate records of correspondence or interaction with the resident. It was not compliant with its complaints policy or the Code. It delayed escalating the resident’s complaint, and only provided its stage 2 responses following communications from this Service. Its offer of financial redress was not proportionate with the impact its service had on the resident. As a result this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £425 compensation.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving complaint handling. As a result of these, a wider order was issued on 21 December 2023 to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to responding to complaints. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202223386. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of:
1. the replacement bedroom flooring;
2. the complaint and compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide clear communications to the resident or manage her expectations, when selecting the replacement flooring.
The landlord failed to provide evidence of its full stage 1 complaint response, a thorough complaint investigation process, or records of resident interactions.
The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to multiple communications from the resident causing her to continually chase the landlord for clarification or a response.
The landlord was not compliant with its complaints policy when carrying out its investigations. It delayed escalating the resident’s complaint as well as providing its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s offer of financial redress was not proportionate to its failures in service delivery.

Orders

When investigating complaints this Service carries out a fair and impartial assessment which seeks to resolve the dispute that has been brought to us. As part of the investigation, we will provide fair and proportionate remedies in line with our remedies guidance, which are appropriate to the circumstances of the individual case, where some level of maladministration has been identified.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders within this timescale also.
The landlord must pay a total of £600 compensation to the resident. This is inclusive of the £170 previously offered in the landlord’s additional stage 2 complaint response. If the landlord has already paid the resident £170, it should make an additional payment of £430. This is broken down by:
1. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
2. £150 for the landlord’s lack of communication.
3. £100 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
A senior manager must write to the resident and apologise for the delays, distress, and inconvenience that has been identified in this report. Its apology must:
1. Acknowledge all maladministration found.
2. Accept responsibility for it.
3. Explain clearly why it happened.
4. Express sincere regret.
5. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same maladministration should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to assure this.

Recommendations

Take steps to ensure its staff are aware of the importance of responding to resident’s call back requests and communications within a reasonable timeframe. This could be done by a review of its customer service training, an internal blog on the group’s intranet or discussed at team meetings.