London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217703

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs, including:
1. The boiler.
2. The shower door.
3. A leak coming through the bathroom ceiling from the roof.
4. A leak under her kitchen sink.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy began on 5 December 2008. The landlord has not provided a response on whether the resident has any vulnerabilities.
The property was a 2 bedroom flat on the sixth floor. The landlord delegated its management responsibilities to a managing agent who was responsible for maintaining the external structure of the building.
On 9 June 2021 the resident reported “multiple” leaks under her kitchen sink. The landlord and resident exchanged emails trying to arrange an appointment. The repair was carried out on 12 December 2022.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord raised a works order to check the roof which was leaking into the bathroom when it rained. Its repairs log showed that the repair was carried out on 16 December 2022. However, the resident reported that water was still coming through a “massive” hole in her bathroom ceiling from the roof. On 4 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order for the contractor to return to address the issue. A file note dated 12 May showed that the landlord passed the repair onto its managing agent because it was their responsibility to arrange the roof repair.
An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 24 November 2021 shows that a works order was raised for a broken shower door which had “come off totally” and was leaking water onto the floor. The log stated that the repair was completed on 12 January 2022. An internal email of 26 August showed that a new works order was raised to fix the shower door. A further entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 3 June 2024 noted that new wheels for the shower doors had been fitted.
An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 18 January 2023 logged the resident’s report that she had been unable to turn the heating off and had no hot water. The landlord’s records noted that its contractor attended the following day however, it was not able to gain access. This was disputed by the resident who said they did not attend. On 19 April the resident told the landlord that her boiler was only working intermittently and it had missed a number of appointments. The repairs logs note that by 27 April the boiler was “completely off.” A further entry dated 4 May noted the landlord’s intention to replace the boiler.
On 26 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request to make a formal complaint about its inaction in relation to repairs to the bathroom ceiling, kitchen sink and shower.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2022, as follows:
1. It assigned the job to resolve the leak through the bathroom ceiling to its roofing contractor the day before. They would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
2. It raised a job with its contractor to rectify the issue with the shower door. It had chased them to contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
3. The leak under the sink was resolved on 14 November and it apologised for the delay.
4. Once the appointments were in place it would calculate redress for the delays, inconvenience and distress caused.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out its offer of compensation as follows:
1. £320 for the delay for all repairs.
2. £100 for inconvenience.
3. £100 for distress.
4. £180 for 9 missed appointments.
5. Total of £700.
During a telephone call with the landlord on 19 April 2023 the resident expressed her frustration with the ongoing issues with the leak through the bathroom ceiling and faulty boiler.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 May 2023, the main points being:
1. The resident’s complaint was submitted to its customer services team but was not forwarded to correct department which was failure of service. This resulted in the complaint not being responded to until 11 November 2022.
2. It set out the events, including communication between the resident and landlord, in relation to the relevant repairs.
3. It confirmed that the repair to the shower doors was complete and an appointment to repair the sink had been scheduled.
4. Its contractor had provided photographs for dates they attended but did not gain access to deal with boiler.
5. On 27 March it raised an order for a property inspection to be carried out. Due to administrative error this did not happen and its inspector was not made aware until an internal call took place on 20 April. It subsequently arranged an appointment for 17 May to inspect the bathroom ceiling, roof and associated damage.
6. It had contacted the managing agent on 11 May and requested it schedule an appointment with the resident to repair the roof.
7. It said the level of service it had provided was “not reflective of the high standards” it aimed to provide. The resident’s enquiries could have been “managed more effectively” and the referral should have been made sooner for “window and door replacements.” It apologised accordingly.
8. It said it would learn from the complaints process to “implement changes to improve service delivery.”
9. It said it usually only took claims for compensation back 12 months however, in this case it went back to 15 months. At the resident’s request it also reviewed compensation for 9 missed appointments. However, the resident was not satisfied and declined to accept its offer.
10. Considering the period between the Stage 1 and 2 response, and its decision, it increased the compensation as follows:
  1. £150 for the delay in response at stages 1 and 2.
  2. £150 for the service failings.
  3. £400 for distress and Inconvenience.
  4. £500 for the delay in repairs.
  5. £180 for missed appointments.
  6. Total of £1380.
During the resident’s telephone call with this Service on 20 September 2023 she requested that we investigate her complaint. The complaint became one we could investigate on 29 May 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

The landlord’s repair logs show that the landlord installed new wheels for the shower doors on 3 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time of the complaint said it aimed to complete routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.”
Its complaints policy states that it aims to log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days.
Its compensation policy says that it will consider paying compensation when it fails to:
1. Complete repairs for which it is responsible to agreed response times.
2. Attend a booked appointment without good reason – not because the customer changed the appointment date/time.
3. Deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility.
4. Respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and does not comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Scope of the investigation.

In her email to the landlord of 30 November 2022 the resident said that she had first reported the leak from the roof through her bathroom ceiling 3 years prior. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events.
In any event this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 2021 onwards that were considered during its complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.

Boiler.

On 18 January 2023 the landlord appropriately raised a 72 hour works order to respond to the resident’s report that she had no hot water and could not turn the heating off. The landlord’s repairs log recorded that it attended on 19 January but could not gain access. On that same day the resident emailed the landlord to report that no one had attended the appointment. She felt the landlord did not care.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 February 2023, 21 days later. Given the nature of the substantive issue, the landlord’s delay in its response was unreasonable. It is noted that in its email the landlord apologised as a means of putting things right.
It advised the resident that it had attempted to complete the repair on 19 January and asked her to call its repairs team to raise a new job. The resident replied on the same day to dispute the contractor’s account. In its email to the landlord on 12 May 2023 the contractor provided a photograph, not seen by this investigation, as proof of attendance on 19 January.
The landlord’s repair logs noted that it tried to attend on 10 February 2023 but was unable to gain access. In her email to the landlord of 23 February the resident said she had called the landlord to advise that she could not facilitate the appointment. She asked them to reschedule but was told they could not. She said she was “really sad and angry” that a boiler with high pressure was not deemed to be serious by the landlord. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The landlord replied on the same day, 23 February, to offer an appointment for the 24 February. It confirmed it had asked its contractor to call the resident when it was enroute to make sure the appointment was not missed again. The resident replied to say she had called the contractor to request that they phone when they were 30 minutes away to give her time to return home from work.
On 24 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say the contractor had called when he got to the property and due to a lack of parking could not wait for her to return home. The landlord replied on the same day to apologise that the contractor had not called when they were on their way. It added this had been a request which could not be guaranteed and that the resident would need to take this up with the contractor.
This was inappropriate because a contractor should make every effort to honour any arrangements made with a resident as a basis for the appointment to proceed. Furthermore, the landlord should have addressed this with the contractor on the resident’s behalf.
It sent a further email later that same day, 24 February 2023, to say it had emailed the contractor to ask that it contact the resident to reschedule. However, the contractor failed to do so causing the resident inconvenience when she emailed the landlord on 3 March to request an update. The landlord failed to respond, causing further inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed to chase again on 16 March.
During an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 30 March 2023 the resident said the boiler issue had not been resolved. The landlord replied on 13 April, 14 days later, to say it had spoken to the contractor. They said a part had arrived that day and that it could attend on 17 April. It failed to acknowledge the delay in its response which was inappropriate.
However on 19 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say the boiler was working intermittently and there was instances where the landlord missed appointments. On 12 May the landlord’s contractor provided dates of 5 appointments where it had attended the property and not gained access. It provided accompanying photographs, not seen by this investigation, for 4 of the 5 appointments.
An entry on the repairs log dated 27 April said the boiler had “gone off totally” meaning the resident had no heating or hot water. A further works order dated 4 May was raised to install a new boiler which was recorded as completed on 14 June.
The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to attend to the boiler. However, it failed to honour its agreement to contact the resident as agreed regarding one appointment. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident during the repair.

Shower door.

On 24 November 2021 the landlord raised a works order that the shower door had “come off totally” and water was leaking onto the floor. The job was marked as complete on 12 January 2022, 80 days later. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in carrying out the repair. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on the landlord’s response times.
A duplicate entry was raised on the repairs log on 22 August 2022. The repairs log shows that a further works order was raised on 20 September to repair the shower door.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 November 2022 confirmed that a job had been raised with its contractor and it had chased them to contact the resident with an appointment.
In its email to the resident of 21 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had spoken to its contractor who confirmed an appointment had been booked for that day. The repair logs show that the repair was appropriately completed on 22 November.
On 7 May 2024 the landlord raised a works order for the shower doors which had come off. The wheels had come out and had to be removed because they would not go back. The repairs logs show that the repair was not completed until 1 June 2024.
The landlord’s repair logs show that the landlord responded appropriately to each request for a repair to the shower doors. However, the evidence shows it took over 2 and a half years to fully resolve the problem which was unreasonable.

Leak coming through the bathroom ceiling.

A file note dated 10 August 2021 shows that a works order was raised to check a leak from the roof which was causing damage to the ceiling when it rained. A file note dated 23 September shows that it was “awaiting resource” and would process the job as soon as possible. Given the nature of the repair the landlord’s delay was unreasonable.
A file note dated 24 September 2021 said the landlord had left a voicemail for the resident having been unable to gain access to complete the repair. It is unclear which repair this entry related to which is a record keeping failure.
An internal email dated 20 December 2021 noted that the resident had called to chase an update. In its email to the resident of 22 December the landlord said it would update “soon.” There is no evidence setting out what events took place between September and December and therefore the landlord’s delay was unreasonable. Furthermore, it failed to keep the resident informed of progress causing her time and trouble having to chase for an update.
On 9 January 2022 the resident called the landlord to check if an appointment arranged for that day was still going ahead. An internal request was made for the resident to be updated accordingly. It is unclear whether the appointment proceeded as planned and whether the resident received a call as requested which is a record keeping failure.
A file note dated 22 June 2022 recorded that an inspection of the roof was carried out by drone. There are no notes setting out the outcome of the inspection or any updates provided to the resident. Furthermore, there is no record of events during the 6 months between January and June which is a further record keeping failure.
The resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she called the landlord on 22 and 26 August 2022 to seek an update. On 26 August the landlord emailed its contractor to ask that it call the resident to update her.
There is no record that it did so, compounding the distress to the resident who called the landlord on 30 August 2022 to say she was “frustrated” about the lack of progress repairing the leak through the “massive hole” in her bathroom ceiling. She said rainfall the previous week had exacerbated the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate, showing a lack of regard to the impact on the resident.
On 7 November 2022 the resident called the landlord again to seek an update. She added that “water was pouring down her walls” and she could see sky through a gap in the ceiling. A file note of the same date shows the landlord called the contractor and left a voicemail asking them to contact the resident with a date and time to inspect. This was not appropriate because, given the extent of the issue, the landlord should have gone further to ensure the necessary action was taken.
A file note dated 14 November 2022 showed that the repair had been allocated to a different contractor. However, it failed to update the resident who was caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 18 November to chase because no one had contacted her. She asked that someone inspect the property. The landlord emailed her on 21 November to say the job had been allocated on 14 November and that the contractor had 20 working days to contact her to make an appointment.
A file note dated 23 November 2022 set out that the resident had called about the repair. Its records showed that she had been offered 2 dates but was unable to facilitate either. The resident had given dates when she would be at home for 3 weeks but the contractor had no availability during that period. In its email to the resident of 29 November the landlord said she would need to call the contractor to arrange a convenient date and that if she did not do so by 12 December it would close the job.
This investigation acknowledges that the contractor’s offer of 2 dates was reasonable and that the repair was complicated by access issues. However, given the nature of the repair and the landlord’s obligations to protect its own asset its response was inappropriate.
The repairs log shows that an order was raised on 29 November 2022 and that the job was completed on 16 December. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 9 January 2023 to say the leak was ongoing and she felt the house was “unsafe.”
On 11 January 2023 the landlord forwarded videos provided by the resident to its contractor who had attended and recorded that the leak was resolved. However there is no evidence that it provided the resident with a response, causing her time and trouble when she emailed to chase on 16 January.
There are no further notes until 16 March 2023 when the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint that her “house was leaking.” On 27 March the landlord sent an internal email asking that assistance be provided to the resident to resolve the leak which had been “ongoing for so long.”
A further file note dated 6 April 2023 asked that the resident be provided with an update. However there is no evidence that this took place which was inappropriate.
A works order was raised on 20 April 2023 for the landlord’s roofing contractors to repair the “ongoing issue.” A file note, also dated 20 April, set out that its surveyor was not aware of a request for the property to be inspected but that it was now in hand.
Its stage 2 complaint response of 12 May 2023 the landlord said it had raised a property inspection by its property supervisor on 27 March. However, due to an administrative error on its part the supervisor was not made aware until an internal call took place on 20 April.
A file note dated 20 April 2023 said a call back needed to be raised for the contractor because works were incomplete. This was 4 months after the resident first raised the ongoing issue and therefore the delay was inappropriate. On 4 May the landlord made a welfare call to the resident during which it provided an update about the recent works order. While this was a positive step it came late in the process given the damage already caused to the landlord/resident relationship.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord emailed the managing agent to provide pictures and videos provided by the resident in relation to the roof and internal damage caused. A file note dated 12 May explained that the property was managed by the managing agent who was responsible for the repair. On the same day the managing agent emailed the landlord to confirm it would progress the issue with its contractor.
The leak from the roof through the hole in the bathroom ceiling was first reported 10 August 2021. The resident spent just under 2 years trying to get the landlord to resolve the leak. During that period it failed to communicate with the resident regarding progress and failed to monitor progress of the works to ensure a swift resolution. That it then determined it was not responsible for the repair caused a further delay which compounded the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Leak under the kitchen sink.

The repair log shows that on 9 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report “multiple leaks” under her kitchen sink. The landlord appropriately attended the same day and on 10 June it booked an appointment for follow on works (a new waste and trap for square overflow and new sink was needed) to take place on 17 June. The resident replied on the same day to say she could not facilitate the appointment so it was rearranged to 15 June.
On the day of the appointment, 15 June 2021, the contractor was unable to complete the works because not enough time was allowed for the works and he did not have the materials. It was passed back to the planning team to rebook and the resident was notified accordingly. This was inappropriate because it caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble to facilitate another appointment.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord sent a text to the resident to notify her that a new appointment had been arranged for 25 June. However, the resident replied to say she was unable to make that date and gave availability for 2 other dates.
An entry on the repairs log dated 19 July 2021 noted that a follow on appointment had been made for 21 July to repair the pipes and replace the taps. A further entry dated 26 July noted that a follow on appointment was booked and confirmed for 28 July. It is unclear why the repair was not fully resolved on 26 July and what follow on works were resolved.
An entry dated 28 July 2021 said the appointment was rebooked for the afternoon slot because the operative could not attend in the morning. It noted the resident “was not happy.” It was inappropriate of the landlord to change the timeslot on the day of the appointment itself. It caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who was unable to facilitate the later appointment.
A file note dated 29 July 2021 showed that a new works order was raised and a new job booked for 11 August because the last one was cancelled.
On 7 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction at its response to the leak. There had been delays caused by nonattendance at appointments. On one appointment the contractor attended to change the tap but the leak was underneath the sink.
It is unclear whether the appointment for 11 August went ahead however, the repairs log dated 24 September 2021 said it had called the resident to book an appointment following no access. There was no answer so it left a voicemail. It said a job needed to be booked as a follow on.
A file note dated 24 November 2021 stated that the resident had called to rebook as she could not do 4 hour appointments. A request to rebook was made and the resident advised accordingly. It is unclear whether this was in response to a new appointment being made.
An entry on the repairs log dated 26 November 2021 showed that the repair was rebooked for 2 December and confirmed with the resident. A further entry dated 30 November noted that a plumbing repair was rebooked for 7 February as the operative was “not in that week.” It is unclear if the week it referred to included 2 December and whether it was this appointment that could not go ahead.
An entry on the repairs log dated 13 December 2021 sets out a note that reads “bowl and half sink then could change all the waste to fit.” The repairs log shows that on 23 August 2022 the landlord raised a further order for a leak under the kitchen sink.
There is no evidence to show what events took place between December 2021 and August 2022 therefore the further delay of another 8 months was unreasonable. This was also a record keeping failure.
An internal email dated 24 October 2022 said the resident had chased the repair. A plumber had attended and submitted a variation order for additional works.
An internal email of 28 October 2022 noted that an appointment had been booked for a plumber on 28 September which they did not attend. A further appointment was booked for 26 October but they did not attend that either because they were held up on an emergency job. The non attendance was inappropriate, causing frustration for the resident and further inconvenience.
The repair logs note that there was an “uncontainable” leak from the kitchen sink reported on 13 November 2022. A file note dated 14 November recorded that the resident was chasing the repair. In her email to the landlord of 15 November the resident reported that the leak was outstanding. A further file note, dated 15 November, said that the resident had asked for the works to be carried out on the weekend as she did not want to take any more time off work. The contractor therefore declined the job.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 November 2022 said that the leak was resolved on 14 November, as shown on its repairs log, but this was incorrect. An internal email also dated 15 November confirmed the landlord was still seeking to appoint a contractor. Furthermore, in an email to the resident of 21 November the landlord confirmed it would email its planners to arrange to rectify the leak. It subsequently raised a new entry on the repairs log on 22 November.
In its letter setting out its compensation offer dated 29 November 2022 the landlord said an appointment had been made to repair the sink on 12 December. The landlord’s records show that the repair was completed on this date.
The leaks from the sink were first reported in June 2021. Works were completed in December 2022, 18 months later. It is acknowledged that there were times when the resident was unable to facilitate appointments offered by the landlord. However, there are large gaps in the timeline which the evidence does not account for and during which the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. There is also evidence that the landlord failed to attend appointments and on some occasions attended without the necessary preparation to resolve the issue. This caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.

Repairs policy.

The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time of the complaint aimed to complete routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.” The wording is vague and does not clearly set out its service standards in relation to its repairs response. However, the landlord’s website shows it has updated its policy to say that it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order in relation to this matter in this report.

Record Keeping.

This investigation has identified failures with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Compensation.

Following discussions with the resident the landlord made an offer of compensation at stage 1 amounting to £700. It appropriately provided a breakdown of what compensation it offered and why which was in line with its compensation policy. At stage 2 the landlord appropriately considered the detriment caused by the ongoing failures and increased the total amount to £1230. This investigation considers that the formulation of the compensation was reasonable.
The landlord’s offer of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact caused by the landlord’s failures. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding because the landlord failed to set out its learning from the complaint.
Therefore, this investigation finds there was maladministration because the landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident.

Previous determination.

In response to orders made in case reference 202123311 the landlord emailed this service on 13 November 2023 to advise that it had a ‘repairs change project’ in place to improve its repairs service to ensure it offered a “consistent, reliable and repeatable experience.”
It also advised that it had implemented a new operating model to handle and oversee complaints and to address lessons learned in a “repeatable, systematic way.”
Therefore it has not been necessary to make further orders on this matter.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) says that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 December 2021. On 22 December the landlord emailed the resident to ask her to provide full details of her complaint and her desired resolution before it would open a complaint.
It is accepted that the landlord needs to know the details to investigate the complaint. However, it should have opened a complaint and requested further information as part of its investigation.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2022. Her frustration was evident because she said the landlord had failed to address her previous complaints. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November to confirm it had logged the complaint. This was 10 days later, and 5 days out of time.
It provided its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. This was 14 working days later and 4 days out of time. The landlord’s complaint response failed to acknowledge the delay which was inappropriate.
The Code says that complaint handlers must consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 November 2022 said that the leak was resolved on 14 November but this was inaccurate.
The Code also requires landlords to confirm details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident remains dissatisfied. It is acknowledged that the landlord advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint to the next stage within 6 months. However, it failed to set out how she could do that.
The resident expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 19 April 2023. The landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 May within time.
However, the stage 2 response also contained errors because it referred to the resident having phoned it on 23 November 2023 which could not be correct given the date of the response. It also said “your enquiries could have been managed more effectively and the referral should have been made sooner for window and door replacements.” This was inappropriate because it had no relevance to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed the delay at stage 1. It appropriately provided an explanation as to what had gone wrong and offered compensation to try to put things right. While this was positive it came late in the process.
Its stage 2 complaint response said it would use the complaint as a learning process and would implement changes. However, it failed to set out what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. This was inappropriate because learning is an important part of the complaints process which should be demonstrated by landlords during their complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident’s £150 for its complaint handling failures which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £150 as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.