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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202217171)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217171

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

9 May 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 handling of and response to:

a.     The resident’s reports that the property was cold and draughty, and his request for improvements.

b.     The resident’s request for the installation of a gate to the communal entrance.

c.      Multiple missed appointments.

d.     The resident’s complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a converted house in a conservation area. The landlord has advised it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, the resident has advised that he is immunosuppressed, and has anxiety and depression. He also advised that he is a full time carer for his mother.
  2. The resident initially requested an update on a gate being fitted to the communal entrance of the building prior to April 2021 and was informed by the landlord that the gate installation was not a repair, and it would need to obtain 2 quotes to submit an estate improvement bid for the work. The landlord responded to a separate complaint from the resident in May 2021 and advised that it was still awaiting a quote for the gate. In October 2021, following a boiler servicing appointment the previous month, an engineer requested a heat loss survey be completed due to an undersized radiator in the bedroom.
  3. In January 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update in relation to the gate as he had heard nothing further. He also said that the flat was very cold and draughty even when the heating was on. He noted that some other properties were having their windows upgraded and asked if there were plans to replace his windows. He also pursued his concerns via the landlord’s Chief Executive in February 2022. He continued to express concern about the affordability of heating in the flat and felt that the cyclical works to properties on his road should be a priority given the location and the number of elderly and vulnerable people. A heat loss survey was completed on 8 March 2022 and the resident continued to pursue his concerns and request updates on at least 6 occasions between March and October 2022. 
  4. The resident asked for his complaint to be moved forward on 15 October 2022. He continued to pursue the complaint directly with the landlord and via his local MP and the Ombudsman in October and November 2022. He was dissatisfied that:

a.     He had heard nothing following the heat loss survey, his flat was draughty and freezing, and he was worried about the impact this would have on his health due to being immunocompromised. He added that something needed to be done as soon as possible regarding the insulation of his property as he could not afford to put the heating on in winter due to the heat escaping through the glass and gaps in the windows.

b.     He had not heard anything further regarding his request for a gate to be installed to prevent animals defecating and people urinating in the front garden. He did not believe this request was unreasonable

c.      His concerns had been ignored for a long time and there had been a lack of communication from the landlord which he found disrespectful.

d.     He also raised a separate complaint regarding a missed appointment on 24 October 2022 for a stock condition survey. He requested compensation as this had impacted his ability to care for his mother.

  1. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 November 2022 and explained the following:

a.     Due to administrative errors, the heat loss survey report had only been made available in November 2022. It provided the resident with a copy of the report and confirmed that the survey recommended a larger radiator be installed in the living room as it was undersized. The survey also noted that the property would benefit from having double glazing.

b.     It would be arranging to replace the radiator, but would not be replacing the windows at that time. It said the property was in a conservation area, which limited its options for replacing the windows, and that any window replacement would form part of a planned cyclical works programme. It had no current plans to replace the windows, but there had recently been a stock condition survey to inform any future planned works. It acknowledged the impact on rising energy costs and offered to refer the resident to a third party energy support service.

c.      It had agreed for the gate installation to be treated as a repair rather than an estate improvement on the basis that there must have been a gate there matching other properties at some time in the past. It confirmed that the resident would receive a call to book the initial appointment.

d.     It apologised for its failure to escalate the issues when the resident had re-raised his concerns and chased it after an unreasonable length of time with no contact or resolution. It accepted that processes had not been followed, and that communication should have been more streamlined.

e.     There had been a missed appointment for the stock condition survey as the surveyor had overbooked on the day. It confirmed that this had now been completed. it said it would make a £30 missed appointment payment.

f.        It also offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of action and communication. 

  1. Between 25 November 2022 and 16 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord at least 14 times via email and also via his MP. He was initially satisfied with the response, and accepted the compensation, but reserved judgement until the outstanding actions were completed. He added that the survey showed that larger radiators were needed in the lounge and bedroom and asked that this was arranged.
  2. The resident continued to chase updates on the works and compensation, and reported 2 further missed appointments on 2 and 9 December 2022. He initially asked for a response at stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 16 January 2023 and again on 23 January 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the lack of communication, that the compensation had not been paid, and that the works agreed had not been carried out. He noted the impact the lack of engagement was having on his mental health.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 16 February 2023. The resident pursued a response to the complaint and reported a further missed appointment on 23 March 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 April 2023 and explained the following:

a.     Following a heat loss survey carried out in February 2022, it was recorded that a radiator in the lounge was undersized and that the single glazed windows were affected by draughts. This report was provided in November 2022 which was an unreasonable length of time with no follow on action taken. It had pressed the importance of the radiator change but could not say when this would take place.

b.     It acknowledged that it had failed to adequately support him in trying to manage the heating in the property, it had been slow to update him and failed to act within a reasonable timeframe. It offered compensation for the service failure.

c.      It confirmed that an appointment had been arranged for 20 March 2023 to complete an annual gas safety check and install the bigger radiator. It noted that he had requested an additional radiator in the hallway which was not part of the recommendations. It confirmed this would be assessed during the appointment. 

d.     It acknowledged that the resident had said there were a number of missed appointments. It had found that there had been 3 missed appointments that he had not been compensated for, most recently on 23 March 2023. It offered compensation for each missed appointment and additional compensation for the length of time since the appointments.

e.     It had agreed to install a gate and made arrangements for this to be completed. it had been assured by its contractor that the gate had been installed, however, it was clear that this information was incorrect and it would not be using the same contractor again.

f.        It acknowledged that the resident had raised concern that he was often not responded to by his housing officer. It apologised and asked to meet with the resident on 25 April 2023 to address his concerns.

g.     It acknowledged that it had failed to escalate his complaint when requested, and that there had been significant and unacceptable delays. It offered compensation in recognition of the impact caused by the delays.

h.     It confirmed that the complaint had been reviewed as part of a learning exercise on how it could improve its customer service. It offered additional compensation to reflect its regret in how his concerns had been handled.

i.        It confirmed that its total offer of compensation was £1,015.

Events following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

  1. The radiator in the resident’s hallway was replaced on 20 April 2023. It was established that the lounge needed an additional radiator and the resident requested an additional radiator in the bedroom. The landlord initially advised that it would not change the bedroom radiators as this was not listed in the heat loss survey but the resident continued to report that the bedroom radiator was the smallest he had (within the largest room in the flat).
  2. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. He wanted the front gate to be installed, additional radiators placed in the lounge and bedroom, the installation of new windows to improve the insulation, and for the landlord to pay the compensation it had offered.
  3. The resident continued to pursue his concerns, noting that he had been promised regular communication, that he had no further updates regarding the repairs and he had not received the compensation. He was informed by the landlord on multiple occasions that the radiator works were awaiting approval with its planning team. Approval for a new radiator in the living room and an extra radiator in the bedroom was given on 20 September 2023 and an appointment was arranged for 3 October 2023 to complete works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of his requests has negatively impacted his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure and exterior of the property, including the windows, as well as the installations provided for space heating.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the expected timescales for repairs; emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours, routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord is expected to acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they could escalate their complaint to stage 2 where the landlord is expected to respond within 20 working days. Where there is likely to be any delay in these timescales, the landlord is expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response date. The policy further confirms that at stage 1 the complaint would be addressed by a resident’s local officer, but if the complaint is about the local officer, it would be handled by their manager.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a contractor working on behalf of the landlord fails to attend an appointment, a resident may be entitled to £30 compensation. The landlord may also offer up to £250 compensation for high-impact failings and over £250 in exceptional circumstances, where there have been multiple service failures.
  5. The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort at the property. Social landlords are exempt from the regulations governing minimum energy efficiency requirements and would not be obliged to make improvements to improve energy efficiency. The landlord would, however, be responsible for ensuring that there were no repair issues which meant that the standard was not being met.
  6. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.

The resident’s reports that the property was cold and draughty and his request for the improvements.

  1. The landlord’s records show that a heat loss survey was initially requested in October 2021 due to an undersized radiator in the bedroom of the property. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this was actioned at the time which would have been appropriate as this record suggests that there were concerns about the temperature at the beginning of the winter season.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident, initially in February 2022, that it would not look to replace the windows with double glazing outside of a planned improvement programme. It is reasonable for social landlords to consider financial restraints when assessing requests for repairs that are deemed as an improvement. The landlord would not strictly be obliged to improve the insulation within the property to improve its energy efficiency or carry out works unless there was evidence of disrepair for which it was responsible.
  3. It can be appropriate for landlords to replace items such as windows as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question was beyond economical repair and posed an immediate danger to the resident. In these cases, the landlord would only be obliged to carry out a like-for-like replacement. The landlord ultimately acted reasonably by confirming that there were no current plans to upgrade the windows in the property but that this would need to form part of a future project. The landlord acted reasonably by managing the resident’s expectations regarding the windows from the outset.
  4. However, given the extended nature of planned programmes of work and the resident’s reports that the property was cold, the landlord was responsible for checking whether the heating system was working effectively and determining if the thermal efficiency of the property was sufficient in line with its obligations under the Decent Homes Standard. While it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct operatives to complete the heat loss survey, this was not ordered until 21 February 2022, over 4 months after the initial request in October 2021. This evidently caused frustration to the resident who believed this had already been requested.
  5. It is noted that the landlord also acknowledged the resident’s report of a draught in February 2022, and said it would be happy to raise a repair on 18 February 2022. It said it would be helpful for the resident to provide a photo of the window, however, did not specify that it would not raise a repair until this was received. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that any assessment of the windows took place following this which would have been appropriate.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident and offer to refer him to an energy support service given his concerns about the cost and affordability of his energy bills. However, the resident initially expressed this concern in January and February 2022 and the landlord did not provide this advice until its stage 1 complaint response in November 2022. It is best practice for landlords to offer advice on energy efficiency when a resident first reports issues regarding energy usage and costs, alongside carrying out investigative works if required. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any advice to the resident on ways to improve energy efficiency in an attempt to assist in resolving the issues reported or reducing costs alongside its own investigations. This would have been appropriate in order to help assist in resolving his concerns.
  7. Following the heat loss survey, carried out on 8 March 2022, there was a significant delay in obtaining the report and taking action which the landlord has acknowledged as being unreasonable. Ultimately, given the resident’s concerns about the cost of his energy bills and the difficulties he was facing, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted proactively in its handling of the matter.
  8. The report indicated that the radiator in the hallway was slightly undersized but that all other radiators were the correct size. It noted that the main issue was that it was very cold and draughty in the lounge due to single glazed windows, with the windows rattling in the wind. It also said that the bedroom window was draughty. It advised that the radiator could be bigger and removed from the window area to reduce heat loss.
  9. Once it received the survey report in November 2022, the landlord failed to act on the report in full. Within its stage 1 complaint response, it said that it would arrange for works to replace a radiator in the lounge and failed to comment on the entrance hall or bedroom. The landlord ultimately failed to engage with the substance of the report.
  10. The resident needed to spend extensive time and trouble pursuing updates regarding the works over another winter period when he was more likely to be impacted by the identified issues. In its stage 2 complaint response on 18 April 2023, the landlord offered contradicting advice and failed to demonstrate it had adequately considered the findings of the initial report. The response said that the survey took place in February 2022, the lounge radiator was undersized (which was incorrect), and that it was unable to say when the radiator would be replaced but also that it would be replaced on 20 March 2023 (a date that had already passed). It also advised that the resident had requested an additional radiator in the entrance hall which was not part of the survey recommendations and that this would be assessed. This was also incorrect as the survey had identified the hallway radiator to be undersized.
  11. It ultimately remains unclear as to why it was the hallway radiator that was replaced on 20 April 2023. The lounge and bedroom radiators were not addressed as per the recommendations of the report. There were further delays in acting on the recommendations of the survey until an appointment was arranged for 3 October 2023, almost 6 months following the stage 2 complaint response, when an additional radiator was placed in the bedroom and a larger radiator placed in the lounge. While the delay may not have impacted the resident’s comfort in the property during the summer months, it is evident that he needed to spend additional time and trouble in pursuing his concerns as they were not adequately addressed by the landlord initially.
  12. Whilst the landlord did take steps to ensure that the heating was working within the property during the survey, it remains unclear as to whether the temperature of the property was checked to determine whether this reached a reasonable temperature in line with the landlord’s obligations. It is also of concern that despite the report indicating that the windows in both the bedroom and lounge were draughty and that it was “very cold”, the landlord failed to take any additional actions to assess the windows to determine whether repairs were needed. These failings were likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who was awaiting a full resolution. An order has been made below for the landlord. The resident may also wish to contact the local authority’s Environmental Health service (EH) if he still experiences cold temperatures in the property. EH can carry out an assessment of the property and make additional recommendations to the landlord if it finds that the property is not able to maintain a reasonable temperature.
  13. In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the flat being cold and draughty, and his request for works. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident for the delay in providing the heat loss survey, for its poor communication and for the lack of action following its stage 1 complaint response and offering compensation. However, it failed to engage with the heat loss survey report and continued to make errors in its handling of the matter, resulting in avoidable delays and communication failures following its final complaint response.

The resident’s request for the installation of a gate to the communal entrance.

  1. The resident had been pursuing his request for a gate to be installed to the communal front entrance since at least April 2021. A gate was subsequently installed around 28 June 2023, over 2 years later. It is not disputed that the resident was subject to poor communication and unreasonable delays.
  2. The landlord would not be obliged to carry out improvements or install items such as gates that were not previously in place as this would not fall under its repair responsibility. In this case, it remains unclear as to whether a gate had been in place in the past. The landlord initially acted reasonably by explaining that it would need to obtain quotes and bid for the improvement work as installing a gate would not be considered a repair. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any further action was taken after May 2021 when it informed the resident that it had only received 1 quote and would chase the second.
  3. It was not until February 2022, following further requests for an update, that the resident was informed that the request had not yet been signed off by a regional head who was “very busy”. This explanation was likely to have caused frustration to the resident who said he had been pursuing the request for 2 years at this stage. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the lack of communication at this stage, yet failed to improve its communication moving forward.
  4. Despite informing the resident that its processes had changed and that a manager could now approve the release of funds for improvements on 28 April 2022, there was a further lack of communication or action. The resident needed to continually pursue a response which necessitated in an unreasonable level of time being spent by him. He was not provided with an update until the stage 1 complaint response issued on 24 November 2022, where the landlord said it would be treating the gate installation as a repair because it was likely that there had been a gate in place in the past. This was a further 7 months with no update and it remains unclear as to why the landlord took at least 18 months to establish that there had likely been a gate in place in the past.
  5. Following this, it took a further 7 months for the gate to be installed around 28 June 2023, which was an unreasonable length of time. While the landlord took some reasonable steps to minimise the ongoing delay by cancelling the work order due to a lack of response from its initial contractor on 2 March 2023, and re-raising this with another contractor, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered doing so sooner.
  6. The landlord then informed the resident that it had cancelled the further work order on 16 March 2023 as it had been provided with an invoice from the initial contractor and asked the resident to confirm whether the gate had now been installed. It is evident that the resident was further inconvenienced by needing to chase works as the gate was installed at another address due to a failure by its contractor. Despite the resident informing the landlord that the gate had not been installed, that the picture provided looked like the gate next door, and was not new, the landlord failed to re-raise the work and the resident was subject to further delays and poor communication.
  7. The landlord acted reasonably within its stage 2 complaint response on 18 April 2023 by acknowledging and apologising for its poor communication, and its and its contractor’s handling of the job, noting that the information provided by the contractor was incorrect. It acted reasonably and demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint by confirming that it would not use the same contractor again. It also acted reasonably by offering compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused. However, it failed to confirm what it would now do to progress the gate installation, which led to further chasing by the resident.
  8. There is no evidence to suggest that the gate “repair” was re-raised until 13 June 2023, approximately 2 months following the stage 2 complaint response. Ultimately, the landlord failed to utilise its complaints process to put things right for the resident or clearly explain the reason behind the delay. The landlord’s internal records from September 2023 indicate that it had acknowledged that the resident had been subject to further failings and should be offered additional compensation. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was offered to him.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s apology for the delays experienced by the resident and overall compensation offer went some way to put things right. However, there were further failings in its handling of the matter which led to more inconvenience and time and trouble being spent by the resident. The Ombudsman has found service failure on this basis.

Multiple missed appointments.

  1. Alongside the main complaint, the resident also raised a complaint on 1 November 2022 about a missed appointment on 24 October 2022 to complete a stock condition survey. This was addressed within the landlord’s complaint responses. He expressed concern that he was not notified in advance that the surveyor would not be attending and the impact of this as he was a full time carer for his mother and needed to be away from her while waiting for operatives to show up.
  2. The resident’s communication suggests that there were further missed appointments on 2 December 2022 to install the gate, and 9 December 2022 to complete an electrical check. It is noted that the resident advised that no one had shown up on 14 February 2023 to complete an electrical check but the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the EPC of the property was updated on the same date which suggests that the appointment went ahead. There was a further missed appointment on 23 March 2023 which the landlord has also acknowledged within its response.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably by compensating the resident for each missed appointment in line with its compensation policy. Nevertheless, while it offered an additional £50 for the inconvenience caused and the delay in addressing the missed appointments in its stage 2 complaint response, it failed to demonstrate it had taken learning or clearly understood the resident’s experience.
  4. The resident advised that he was a full time carer and to be available for appointments he needed to take time away from caring, meaning that where appointments were missed, this had a negative impact on him and his ability to care for his mother. Given his concerns that he had not been informed that operatives would not be attending, and the repeated failures to attend the property over a relatively short timescale, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated its processes for informing residents when an appointment is likely to be missed.
  5. The landlord failed to provide a clear explanation of what should happen if an operative is not able to attend an appointment, why this had happened and why the resident was not informed. The failure to attend was likely to cause a greater deal of inconvenience to the resident in view of his caring responsibilities which it had been made aware of. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint or put measures in place to prevent similar failings in the future.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missed appointments. While it acted reasonably by compensating him for the missed appointments in line with its policy and acknowledging the delay in providing the compensation following the missed appointments, it failed to take steps to prevent additional inconvenience being caused to him or fully consider his circumstances.

The resident’s complaint. 

  1. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (initially in place from December 2020), a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It is the Ombudsman’s view that a resident should not need to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such.
  2. In this case, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of response from his housing officer to his concerns about the gate and insulation in an email directly to the chief executive’s office on 5 February 2022. He then expressed concern that the matter was being passed back to his housing officer on 8 February 2022, and said that he hoped that now he had “complained at a higher level”, the issues would be resolved on 21 February 2022. Despite this, his concerns were not treated as a formal complaint.
  3. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of response or update on a number of occasions between February 2022 and his “formal” complaint in October 2022. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had multiple opportunities to treat the resident’s dissatisfaction under its formal complaints process at an early stage. Its failure to address the resident’s concerns formally amounts to a service failure and was likely to cause inconvenience.
  4. Despite the resident’s clear request to move his complaint forward on 15 October 2022, it is unreasonable that the complaint was not acknowledged by the landlord until 2 November 2022, following contact from the resident’s MP and a further complaint from the resident regarding a missed appointment. This was 9 months since he had initially expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of action and response which is a significant delay.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022 which was outside of its 10 working day policy timescale. While the landlord advised that there had been a delay due to a staff member being unwell, it failed to provide clear information on when the resident would receive a response which resulted in him spending additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint. In addition, despite the resident raising clear concerns about the lack of communication from his housing officer and his request that a more senior member of staff intervened, the complaint was dealt with at stage 1 by the same individual, which was not appropriate and shows a lack of impartiality in its handling of the complaint.
  6. It is evident that the landlord failed to escalate the complaint despite the resident showing clear dissatisfaction with the lack of action, communication and compensation offered, on a number of occasions between 2 December 2022 and 16 February 2023 when the stage 2 request was acknowledged. The resident had specifically asked for a stage 2 complaint response on 16 January 2023 (a month prior) and the delay was unreasonable. Despite acknowledging the complaint, the landlord then failed to provide its response until 18 April 2023 which was outside of its published timescales.
  7. In addition, it is noted that there were significant periods of delayed communication due to staff members being absent or on leave throughout the process. While it is noted that the resident’s housing officer has now changed, the landlord should ensure that it has adequate systems in place to ensure that sufficient cover is put in place where staff are absent. It is of concern that despite raising concerns about the landlord’s communication processes not working effectively, this was not addressed in full.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its poor complaint handling and communication within its response. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response included a number of inaccuracies specifically in relation to the radiator replacements and the level of compensation offered. This showed a lack of care and quality. This also meant that the resident’s concerns were not fully addressed and he was subject to further inconvenience as a result.
  9. Within its response, the landlord offered £765 compensation, within the calculation table in the response it offered £985, but it then confirmed its total offer was £1,015. The Ombudsman sought clarity from the resident as to how much he was paid due to the lack of clear information provided. He has confirmed that he was paid £1,015, in addition to the £290 offered at stage 1. Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to acknowledge the failings it identified and put things right for the resident at the time. However, the overall figure is not considered proportionate in view of the additional failings and impact on the resident.
  10. In summary, the landlord’s communication and complaint handling was poor and likely to have caused significant distress for the resident and uncertainty about whether his complaint was taken seriously. While the landlord acknowledged the delay at both stages and acknowledged that its communication had been poor, it failed to set out the specific points of learning the complaint or how it would prevent similar failings in the future. There was also a delay in paying the compensation as offered to the resident following its final complaint response and errors in progressing works which were likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of, and response to, the resident’s reports that the property was cold and draughty, and his request for improvements.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of, and response to, the resident’s request for the installation of a gate to the communal entrance.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of, and response to, multiple missed appointments.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of, and response to, the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and significant time and trouble spent by him, as a result of its failings.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to complete an assessment of the resident’s windows to determine whether further repairs are required to prevent draughts into the property and whether there are any further factors which may be contributing to heating issues in the property.
  4. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should write to the resident setting out its findings and recommendations, providing a schedule of works (where works are found to be needed) that includes timescales for completion and a single point of contact who will liaise with him during the course of the works.
  5. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning. This should include a review of:

a.     how it manages contact and actions where staff are unwell or absent;

b.     how it communicates with residents where it becomes apparent that an appointment is likely to be missed;

c.      what measures it has in place to ensure that it pro-actively follows up on, and pays compensation for, missed appointments.

  1. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.