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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202228257)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228257

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
    3. Knowledge and information management.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease at the property which is a 2 bedroom, eighth floor flat. She lives with her adult daughter and has lived at the property since 2016.
  2. On 27 August 2021 the landlord raised a repair following a report of a leak into the resident’s property. An inspection was carried out on 1 September 2021 and no leak could be identified coming from the flat above. A roofing contractor advised the landlord that a builder would be required to remove the remains of wind turbines from the roof, in order to inspect the roof area. The landlord raised a job in respect of the leak, suspected to be coming from the roof, on 3 November 2021. Works were approved in December 2021 as an emergency repair. Following this, the landlord recorded that a patch repair to the roof had been completed on 7 January 2022.
  3. The roofer re-attended on 6 May 2022 and reiterated that the wind turbines needed to be removed. There was a gap in the correspondence seen by this Service until 26 August 2022, when the landlord noted internally that there was a leak into the resident’s property which had happened since the windmill was taken off the roof”. It raised a job that same day. A roofer attended on 8 November 2022 and completed a repair to felt an area of roof and it applied liquid coating.
  4. There was a gap in correspondence until the resident submitted a complaint on 18 January 2023 and stated as follows:
    1. Since moving into the property in 2016 there had been issues with the hot water. Other residents in the block had been experiencing the issues and there was a problem with the plant room.
    2. She had reported a leak into her property on 11 January 2022 but had not received a response to her email. The landlord had given her a job reference number on 26 August 2022, however, a contractor had not attended and the leak still dripped into her bath.
    3. She had lost earnings waiting  for repairs. She had been off work for over 6 months due to stress and due to not being able to use the bath. Both she and her daughter had to go to a relative’s house to have a bath. This had caused “great inconvenience, distress, anxiety and discomfort”. Their dignity and social lives had been impacted.
    4. The leak had damaged the bathroom lights and extractor fan and neither worked. The lack of a working bathroom fan compromised their health.
    5. She requested a refund of the rent of at least £30,000 each for her and her daughter.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2023 and stated that it had discriminated against her. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint that same day and stated it would aim to respond within 10 working days. The landlord noted internally that it could not see an update in respect of removing the wind turbines, following the roofer’s advice from 6 May 2022.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 March 2023 and stated as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It clarified that it did not investigate issues of complaint which had occurred more than 12 months prior.
    2. It apologised that it did not have a record of action taken since the roofer had advised that the wind turbines needed to be removed. It had chased its maintenance team about this and would update the resident within 7 days. It apologised for the impact and inconvenience caused by this.
    3. It apologised that the bathroom ceiling had been affected by the leak. It advised that this would usually need to be claimed via a resident’s home contents insurance. However, due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing, it provided details of how the resident could make a claim on the landlord’s insurance.
    4. It had not received any reports from the resident about not having heating or hot water since 3 November 2021. It acknowledged that there had been a number of reports from other residents in the block in December 2022. As such, it had installed a temporary plant room in January 2023 and works for a permanent plant room were due to be carried out. It would monitor this and ensure that residents were kept updated.
    5. During a meeting with residents, there had been a request for a service charge refund for the 2 year period the heating and hot water issue had been ongoing. It would be contacting all residents regarding this refund.
    6. It acknowledged that the level of service the resident had received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. Repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively.
    7. Details of the complaint had been referred to its central complaints learning team who would conduct an internal review of the failings and seek to implement preventative measures.
    8. It offered compensation based on the number of months the leak had been unresolved. It offered a total of £290 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. Inconvenience and distress: £10 x 12 = £120
      2. Time and effort: £10 x 12 = £120
      3. Complaint handling: £25
      4. Delay in stage 1 decision: £25.
  7. An inspection was carried out on 1 June 2023 which the landlord noted had not identified any leak from the roof or from the upstairs neighbour’s flat. It recommended that the resident’s ceiling be cut out to investigate further.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 June 2023 and stated as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 and for its lack of communication following the escalation.
    2. It provided a timeline of the action it had taken in respect of reports of leaks since 2021 and advised that it had been unable to ascertain where the leak was coming from. It had arranged for its maintenance supervisor and a roofer to inspect the roof further on 26 June 2023. Until it had determined the cause of the leak and who was responsible for any repair, it was unable to consider compensation. As per its compensation policy, it was unable to compensate for loss of earnings.
    3. It had reviewed the property repair history and there was only one report from the resident of having no heating and hot water from 3 November 2021. This had been marked as complete on 10 November 2021. As it was waiting for the resident to clarify when she had been without such service, it could not determine compensation at the time.
    4. It apologised that it had not responded to an email sent by the resident on 11 January 2022. The staff member had since left its employment so it had been unable to investigate this further.
    5. It offered a total of £375 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £120, which had been offered at stage 1.
      2. £30 to acknowledge the delay at stage 2.
      3. £25 to apologise for the lack of contact.
      4. £120 for distress and inconvenience.
  9. On 29 June 2023 the landlord contacted the upstairs tenant and advised that it would like a plumber to investigate in the tenant’s bathroom for a possible leak. The tenant advised the landlord that it had sent a plumber 2 weeks before, who had found no leak.
  10. On 7 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the roof had been inspected and there had been no signs of water penetrating into the building. There had been no signs of water ingress into the flat above, which would be expected if the leak was from the roof. As such, it would need to investigate further. The landlord noted internally (27 July 2023) that the resident had confirmed that the leak only happened in the winter, when it rained heavily with strong wind. It had agreed with her that it would carry out an inspection during such weather conditions.
  11. The resident referred her case to this Service on 1 September 2023 and stated that the leak had not been resolved.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

  1. The landlord advised this Service that the resident had agreed to contact the landlord when it was raining and the leak was occurring, so that it could witness the leak however, the resident had not made contact. In addition, the resident had not provided the details of when the leak occurred, nor a recording, as requested.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The correspondence seen by this Service and the landlord’s stage 2 response, sets out that a leak had been reported by the resident in 2021. The landlord completed a repair to the roof in January 2022. The resident reported another leak in August 2022 and subsequently submitted a complaint in January 2023 about an unresolved leak. This Service is not able to determine whether the leak reported in 2021 is the same leak as reported in 2022. It is noted that the 2021 leak had impacted the resident and her upstairs neighbour, whilst the more recent 2023 leak impacted only the resident. It is noted, however, that the landlord referred to the actions it had taken in 2021 and its failures in respect of this within its complaint responses. As such, this Service has considered the landlord’s actions from 2021 onwards.
  2. The resident stated that there had been issues with the hot water since she had moved into the property in 2016. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from when the resident raised this within her complaint (18 January 2023) onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context.
  3. The resident raised the issue of the impact of the repair issues on her and her daughter’s mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
  4. The resident has told this service that she felt discriminated against by the landlord. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaints.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom

  1. The resident stated within her complaint (18 January 2023) that she had reported a leak into her bathroom around a year before (11 January 2022) which had not been fixed. She explained the impact this had on the household and their ability to use the bath when the leak was occurring. The landlord did not initially respond to the resident’s concerns and as such, the resident contacted it again on 15 February 2023 and stated that she felt discriminated against (she did not states on what basis). This prompted the landlord to take action and it tried to call her and left her a voicemail.
  2. The landlord noted internally that same day (15 February 2023) that it had carried out an emergency repair to the roof 7 January 2022. (Contemporaneous records of this work were not provided to this Service). Following this, a roofer had attended and advised on 6 May 2022, that wind turbines on the roof would need to be removed in order to inspect the roof. The landlord noted that it did not have a record of any action it had taken in respect of this. Despite its lack of records, it is noted by this Service that on 26 August 2022 the landlord had recorded in its notes that the resident had reported a leak “since the windmill was taken off the roof”. It therefore reasonable to conclude that at least one of the wind turbines had been removed prior to August 2022, although the landlord did not have a record of this having been carried out.
  3. A subsequent roof repair was completed on 8 November 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to check with the resident if the repair had stopped the leak, as would have been a reasonable expectation in the circumstances.
  4. The resident raised her complaint on 18 January 2023 and stated that the leak was still ongoing. There is no evidence of the landlord taking action in response to the resident’s complaint until. 17 March 2023. The landlord outlined in later correspondence that on that date it had chased up its maintenance team in respect of the roof works and the wind turbines, due to there being a lack of records on the subject.
  5. The lack of accessible and auditable information in regard to the history of repairs was indicative of the landlord operating with ineffective record keeping system. The outcome of the job raised for the leak attended in January and May 2022 should have been proactively recorded and monitored by the landlord, to ensure that identified works had been completed. The lack of available information clearly caused a delay in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
  6. Within its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the impact of its failure. It recognised that the issue with the leak and wind turbines had been outstanding for a period of time and as such, it signposted the resident to its insurer in respect of damage that was subsequently caused to the bathroom ceiling. This did not resolve the reported ongoing leak, however, the signposting to its insurer was appropriate to address damage caused to the ceiling. This was also in line with the resident’s lease which states:
    1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof, main structure of the building, pipes, drains, cisterns, tanks, drainage and water apparatus.
    2. The landlord will not be liable for any damage caused due to the bursting or overflowing of any pipe, tank, boiler or drain in the building, although liability for such may be covered by the landlord’s insurance.
  7. The landlord offered £120 compensation at stage 1. £50 of this was for complaint handling and £70 was to acknowledge the impact of the leak. The landlord advised that it had based its compensation on the number of months the leak had been unresolved, which it stated was 12 months.
  8. The resident’s complaint t was in respect of a leak since August 2022. The period between the reported start of the leak and the complaint (January 2023) was around 5 months. It is not clear how or why the landlord calculated that the period would be 12 months. However, due to the difficulty in determining if the leak was a new issue or related to previous works, the 12 month period used to calculate compensation by the landlord was reasonable. This reflected the landlord’s complaints policy that it would consider matters for a period of 1 year leading up to a complaint.
  9. Despite advising the resident within its stage 1 response that it would update her in respect of the roof within 7 days, there is no evidence that it did so. Instead the correspondence seen by this Service shows that it took the landlord around a month (23 April 2023) to raise a job to inspect the roof. It is not clear why, but it subsequently raised the same job again on 25 May 2023.
  10. The roof was inspected on 1 June 2023. This was over 4 months after the resident had raised the matter within her complaint. This timeframe unreasonable and was not in line with the expected response timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy at the time, which stated that repairs should be caried out at the earliest mutually convenient time. Following the inspection, the contractor noted that no sign of water penetration could be found on the roof or from the flat above. The contractor recommended to the landlord that the resident’s ceiling should be cut out to investigate further.
  11. On 21 June 2023 the landlord advised the resident that its maintenance supervisor and contractor would be attending to carry out a joint inspection of the roof on 26 June 2023. It is not clear why it determined that another roof inspection was necessary rather than following the advice of its contractor, to cut out and insect the ceiling area. At the date of this investigation there are still reports of an active leak affecting the property. This Service has not seen any evidence that the ceiling inspection as recommended by its contractor had been carried out, or, that information was recorded by the landlord so as to negate the requirement for such an inspection to take place. As such the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had conducted a thorough investigation into the cause of the leak to a standard that could have been reasonably expected based on the information available.
  12. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 June 2023 and advised that it was still looking into the leak. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the impact of the leak on the household. It advised that until it had determined the cause of the leak and who was responsible for any repair, it was unable to consider compensation. It advised that, as per its compensation policy, it was unable to compensate for loss of earnings. This was appropriate and reflected the terms of its policy.
  13. Within the stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had raised a repair for the bathroom fan and light on 1 June 2023. It confirmed that the bathroom fan had been replaced on 7 June 2023. It did not, however, provide details as to whether the issue with the light had been resolved. The failure to either conduct, or evidence a repair had taken place was unreasonable. It is not clear why the landlord took around 5 months (January to June 2023) to arrange these repairs. This timeframe was not appropriate and was not in line with its repairs policy. It is noted that the resident had raised concerns about the impact of a lack of ventilation on the household’s health. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s specific health concerns in how it responded to the repair issues.
  14. The landlord increased its offer of compensation within its stage 2 response to a total of £375. This included £80 for complaint handling, leaving £295 as compensation to acknowledge the impact of the leak and its lack of communication.
  15. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  16. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Is a risk-based evaluation tool to help identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies in dwellings. The presence of a leak in a property can be classed as a hazard under the HHSRS. The resident had outlined how the household had been impacted by the leak and that the bath could not be used when the leak was occurring. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may consider discretionary compensation if its failure caused a resident a loss of amenity. The landlord’s total offer of £295 compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend where there had been a minimal impact on a resident for a short duration. As such, this level of compensation was unreasonable as it was not reflective on the level of failures by the landlord and the impact upon the resident. The landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to the report of the leak, and its failed to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation into the potential cause of the leak. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom.
  17. This Service has ordered compensation of £600 (this includes the landlord’s offer of £295). This is in line with the Ombudsmans remedies guidance for where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water

  1. On 18 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint regarding the hot water supply at the property. She stated that since moving into the property in 2016 there had been issues with the hot water. Other residents in the block had been experiencing the issues and there was a problem with the plant room.
  2. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its complaints process and said that it had previously received a report from the resident on 3 November 2021 about not having heating and hot water, but it had received no other reports from her since. It did, however, acknowledge that there had been a number of reports from other residents in the block in December 2022 about a loss of such facilities. The landlord said it diagnosed the problem as airlocks in the system. As such, it had installed a temporary plant room in the block in January 2023 and works for a permanent plant room were due to be carried out.
  3. It apologised for the impact of issue and noted that it had held a resident’s meeting where the matter was raised (the date is not clear). Following the meeting it had agreed to consider a refund of resident’s service charges for the 2 year period during which the block had experienced such issues. The landlord advised that it would monitor the situation and would contact residents about a refund. At the time of this investigation, this Service has not seen any evidence that this had been carried out or compensation determined for residents by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s response provided both a temporary and then permanent solution to the reported problem. Furthermore, it acknowledged the impact of the issue on all the effected residents and set out a proposal to consider a refund as a means of redress.
  5. Within the stage 2 response (22 June 2023), the landlord stated that following the resident’s reports of having no heating and hot water on 3 November 2021, it had raised a repair. This had been marked as complete on 10 November 2021. The landlord’s repairs policy applicable at the time, states that it will complete non-emergency repairs at the first mutually convenience time. Although this Service has not seen the correspondence between the parties in respect of arranging the repair, it is noted that the household was without heating and hot water for a period of 7 days over the winter period.
  6. The landlord clarified within its stage 2 response that it would not offer a rent reduction as was requested by the resident, but that it would consider compensation once the resident had confirmed the dates she had been without supply. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered compensation for the known period that she had been without heating and hot water in 2021. As the landlord was aware that the resident had been without heating and hot water during the winter, it should have offered compensation in respect of this loss of amenity. As it did not do so, the landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken steps to put things right for the resident at the earliest opportunity. Whilst the resident failed to provide the requested information to the landlord, the failure to provide appropriate redress for the known period the resident was effected by the loss of hot water and heating amounts to maladministration.
  7. The Ombudsman has ordered £170 compensation to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident. This equates to £20 a day for the 7 days the landlord was aware that the resident had been without heating and hot water.

Knowledge and information management

  1. The evidence shows the landlord lacked comprehensive records of the action it had taken following the advice of its contractor to remove the wind turbines from the roof. Despite its internal correspondence stating that it had removed a wind turbine sometime after May 2022, the landlord could not find any record of this work, nor what the outcome had been in respect of the leak.
  2. When the landlord contacted the resident’s upstairs neighbour to arrange an inspection, the neighbour responded by advising the landlord that it’s plumber had carried out such an inspection around 2 weeks prior. It is concerning that the neighbour knew more about the inspection than the landlord did and that it did not have a record of this, nor of the findings.
  3. The landlord’s lack of effective record keeping in this case, impacted on its ability to respond effectively as it was unsure as to what inspections and work had been undertaken. An efficient and effective repairs service requires sufficient records. In this case the evidence shows the landlord’s records were insufficient to achieve an effective service. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it, and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents. This would improve the landlord’s response about works it had undertaken. It would also help with investigations conducted by this Service by improving our understanding of the situation at the material time of the complaint.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services.
  5. By failing to manage, share, and use information effectively and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to progress the repairs or provide effective communication to the resident in a timely manner. The impact of its information handling practices caused detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  6. It is noted that at a similar time to the consideration of the complaint in this case, the Ombudsman issued an Investigation Report involving the landlord (case reference 202122562 in March 2023). This ordered a senior management review of the landlord’s record keeping in respect of repairs. As this is something the landlord undertook previously, no further review of this has been ordered in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy which was in force at the time of the complaint, states that it will log a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days of receipt. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required it will let the resident know.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint on 18 January 2023. The landlord did not acknowledged the complaint until almost a month later (15 February 2023). It did not explain this delay. The landlord advised the resident on 28 February 2023 that it needed an additional 10 working days to respond. However, it did not respond within this extended timeframe and there is no evidence that it had proactively kept in contact with the resident about the further delay.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. This was 42 working days after the resident had submitted her complaint, and was significantly outside of its stage 1 response timeframe.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this the following day (22 March 2023). Within this acknowledgement, it pre-empted that it’s stage 2 response would be delayed and stated that it had been experiencing a high demand for complaint escalations due to its requirement to comply with the Code. The Ombudsman issued a Special Report about the landlord in July 2023. This identified a tendency for the landlord to state that the Code contributed to the high level of complaints it was receiving. This was evident in this case. The landlord should have had sufficient resources in place to be able to deal with complaints in line with its policy.
  5. This Service has seen an internal note from the landlord (3 April 2023) in which it stated that with pressure from the Ombudsman and adverse media coverage, it needed to resolve the leak as soon as possible. Whilst resolving the leak was something it should be committed to doing, its motivation should not be the reasons stated. It should have placed the impact on the resident at the forefront of its consideration, however, this is not what it had demonstrated.
  6. As the landlord had not responded at stage 2, the Ombudsman became involved and asked it (on 20 April 2023) to respond within 10 working days. The landlord failed to do so and as such the Ombudsman contacted it again on 15 June 2023 and asked it to respond by 22 June 2023. It is not clear why, but the landlord sent another acknowledgement of the escalation request on 16 June 2023. It subsequently sent the stage 2 response on 22 June 2023. This was 63 working days after the escalation request. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
  7. Within the internal complaints procedure, the landlord apologised for the complaint handling delays. It offered a total of £80 compensation to acknowledge the impact of its complaint handling failures (a total of £50 at stage 1 and £30 at stage 2). Given the significant delays at both stages of the complaints procedure and the landlord’s lack of ownership of the reasons for this, this compensation was not sufficient to remedy the delay experienced by the resident in achieving resolution to her complaint.
  8. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this Service has ordered compensation of £250 to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £80.
  9. It is noted that issues have been identified by this Service in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling in other recent cases. This Service has issued orders to the landlord in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to undertake management reviews of complaint handling failures identified. Such reviews were ordered in case reference 202202309 (30 January 2024) and 202221775 (21 June 2024). As the landlord has taken recent action in respect of reviewing its complaint handling, no further order will be made in respect of this within this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay £1020 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £375. The compensation ordered by this Service is made up as follows:
      1. £600 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failures in respect of the leak.
      2. £170 to acknowledge the impact of not having heating and hot water for 7 days.
      3. £250 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident.
    3. Confirm to the resident and this Service when works to the permanent plant room are due to commence.
    4. Confirm to the resident and this Service whether works to the bathroom light have been completed. If not this is to be actioned within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Carry out an inspection of the resident’s ceiling where the leak has been reported to investigate possible causes of the leak. Provide a report to this Service and the resident detailing the findings and any follow on works.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord clarify the progress on the considerations it was undertaking regarding a refund of service charges as per its stage 1 response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord enquire again with the resident as to what dates she had been without heating and hot water and to make an appropriate offer of compensation if provided.