Peabody Trust (202321675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321675

Peabody Trust

5 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured fixed term tenancy with the landlord between September 2015 and March 2024. The property was a 2–bedroom, low rise top floor flat. The resident has 2 young children and told this Service that her daughter has mental health difficulties, however the landlord has no record of this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 to make a formal complaint. She said that she was not willing to pay the recent rent increase, as she had outstanding repairs to her property that she first reported in May 2022. The repairs included:
1. Damaged kitchen units and flooring, following a leak.
2. Defective windows and frames that caused draughts and moved in the wind.
3. A defective balcony door that would not close properly.
The resident stated that the landlord’s repair contractor had attended to inspect the windows and door but advised that it required a glazing specialist to undertake the required works. She said that she had reported the issues on several occasions, but did not receive a response, and ultimately felt let down by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint via email on 22 March 2023. It informed the resident that it had allocated a complaint investigator who would be in touch directly to discuss the issues she had raised.
The landlord contacted the resident on 30 March 2023 to discuss the complaint, but as she was unavailable to speak, she requested a call back for the following day. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord returned the call.
On 30 March 2023, as part of its investigation, the landlord requested some information from its repair contractor. The repair contractor responded to the landlord on 17 April 2023 and stated that it had reviewed the repair history for the property and “could not see that the resident had raised anything”. It also stated that it was unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The landlord responded the following day and requested the repair contractor to provide it with an appointment date for the inspection so it could email the resident.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and left a voicemail. It appears that the resident did not respond at the time.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had been trying to reach her to discuss the complaint and that it wanted to arrange an inspection with the repair contractor to assess the outstanding repairs. It stated that if it had not received a response from her by 10 May 2023, it would assume that she no longer needed assistance and would close the complaint. Although the date is unknown, the records suggest that the resident responded to the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 15 May 2023 and said that:
1. It had raised the outstanding repairs for the kitchen flooring, window and balcony door and requested that the repair contractor provide it with an action plan and timescale for works.
2. At her request, it had requested an appointment with the repair contractor for an inspection on or after 26 May 2023.
3. It would monitor the outstanding repairs through to completion and would then review the repair and complaint journey to calculate any compensation that may be applicable.
4. If it had not received a response from her by 29 May 2023, it would assume she was satisfied and did not want to escalate the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2023 to postpone the appointment with the repair contractor scheduled for 26 May 2023, as she was unwell and said that she would contact the landlord to rearrange.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm if the repairs had been completed. It is unclear from the evidence provided what date the inspection took place, but the resident responded and stated that the windows had been secured but none of the repairs had been completed. She also requested a report from the landlord detailing all the occasions she had contacted it regarding the repairs, as the local environmental health service wanted a copy. The landlord replied to say the delays were due to the door being on order and once it was in stock, the repair contractor would be in touch to arrange appointments for scaffolding and the repairs.
The landlord informed the resident on 15 June 2023 that following the visit to her home the previous week, the scope of work and quote had been sent to the relevant supervisor. It advised that scaffolding would need to be erected before the works could commence, and the repair contractor would be in touch to arrange the repairs once the door had been delivered, as it was not readily available.
The landlord requested an update from the repair contractor on 5 July 2023, but there is no evidence that it received a response.
On 17 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to ask if the works had been carried out. The resident responded the same day and stated that no works had been undertaken to the property. She requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The same day, the landlord requested an update from the repair contractor which provided it with photographs and videos of the windows and balcony door from the inspection in June 2023. The repair contractor said it had made the ceiling-to-floor windows safe, but they “required urgent attention” as they had been measured too short for the openings, and the fixings were not sufficient to hold them in place. It also asked the landlord to confirm how it would like to proceed with the kitchen units, as it was unable to get a colour match, and the resident was unhappy as she wanted all the units to match. The contractor provided the landlord with a quote for the required works.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident that the issues remained unresolved and stated that for it to consider the escalation request, it would need to know:
1. What she specifically remained dissatisfied with.
2. Why she wished to escalate the complaint.
3. What outcome she sought.
While this Service does not dispute that the resident had responded to the landlord’s email on 19 July 2023, no evidence has been provided of this. On 25 July 2023 the resident requested an update from the landlord. She said that she had not received a response and that she had also left a voicemail on the mobile number it provided her. The landlord replied to the resident the same day to advise that another staff member was now managing her case, but as they were on annual leave they would chase an update from the repair contractor.
The resident responded the same day and said that since she had made the complaint in March 2023, other than “putting screws in the windows through the wall to keep it secure, nothing had been done” by the landlord. She attached photographs and videos of the outstanding repairs and expressed her frustration that she had not been provided any updates and that her complaint was being “passed around the complaint department”. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
The landlord contacted the repair contractor the same day and requested an update on the repairs. The repair contractor responded to say that the quote for works was with the approving managers following the email it had sent on 17 July 2023.
The records show that all the outstanding repairs were closed on the landlord’s system in August 2023. A note stated that it was “not carrying out the works here – job closed”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2023 and requested to make a further complaint following advice from the local environmental health service. She said she was unhappy about the outstanding repairs and the landlord’s failure to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She stated that since the initial complaint in March 2023, nothing had been done, and when she had requested updates, she had not received a response. As a resolution she asked for the issues to be fixed, and to move home via the mutual exchange process. The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the same day, and advised the resident that she would receive an update within 5 working days.
As the resident had not received an update from the landlord, she raised the issue with the Ombudsman on 22 September 2023. She stated that repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door were outstanding. She said that since she had first submitted the complaint, the landlord had:
1. Arranged for the repair contractor to inspect the windows. The contractor advised her not to touch or open them as they were unsafe. The resident said it drilled screws into the wall to secure the windows, and measurements were taken as they would need to be replaced by a glazing specialist. When the repair contractor attended for the second time, it said that it had been sent by the landlord to seal around the windows, despite her being told that was not a possibility during the previous appointment. The landlord measured the windows again and informed the resident that a report would be sent.
2. Told her that the glazing specialist would also repair the balcony door. She stated that she could not close the door at all and lived on the top floor of a block of flats. She said that when it rained the living room got wet and was freezing cold.
3. Informed her that it would need to replace the kitchen floor and cupboard, but they would need to be ordered in.
4. Not provided her with any updates about the repairs and associated complaint, despite her sending many emails.
The resident told this Service that the situation was affecting her own mental health and that of her daughter. As an outcome to her complaint, she wanted the repairs to be completed so that she could move home via mutual exchange, and for the landlord to clear her rent arrears via compensation.
On 27 October 2023 the Ombudsman instructed the landlord to provide evidence of a stage 2 response within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its final response on 3 November 2023. It provided a timeline of the events, highlighted and apologised for its failings, and offered the resident a total of £650 in compensation. Within the response it stated that:
1. It upheld the complaint in relation to the kitchen, windows and balcony door repairs, as the records showed that they were first reported on 27 June 2022 but incorrectly closed as ‘completed’ in October 2022. The same repairs were then raised on 10 May 2023 following the stage 1 complaint, but they were incorrectly closed again in August 2023. It offered £400 in compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience it had caused the resident.
2. It had evaluated its complaint handling since March 2023 and concluded that it was not in line with its policy or expectations. It apologised to the resident for its failings and offered £250 in compensation.
3. The repairs contractor had provided a summary of all outstanding repair issues and full approval had been provided to commence the work urgently.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 6 November 2023, the landlord increased its compensation offer in recognition of the fact that the resident was unable to enjoy her property. The resident asked for further compensation at a later date, but the landlord refused. A total of £1,500 in compensation was paid into the resident’s rent account in February 2024.
The records show that the repairs to the windows and balcony door were completed on 26 January 2024.
The resident later told this Service that she moved out of the property in March 2024 via a mutual exchange. The landlord confirmed that the outstanding repairs to the kitchen units and flooring were completed after the tenancy had ended.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of her reports of repairs in the property affected her family’s mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door

Section 3.2 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises [which includes] outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames”. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the complaint stated that it was responsible for repairing or replacing kitchen unit doors, standard safety flooring in the kitchen, and the glazing and frames to external windows and doors.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 13 March 2023 about the outstanding repairs to her kitchen, windows and balcony door. She said that after numerous phone calls to the landlord since May 2022, the repairs had still not been completed. While this Service does not dispute the resident’s claims that she had contacted the landlord about the outstanding repairs before raising her complaint, this Service has seen no evidence of this, so is unable to comment on this matter.
Correspondence between the landlord and the repair contractor between 30 March 2023 and 17 April 2023 stated that the contractor had reviewed the repair history for the property, and “could not see that the resident had raised anything”. However, this was incorrect as the stage 2 investigation later identified that the repairs for the kitchen, windows and balcony door were first reported on 27 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response failed to answer the complaint appropriately as it did not provide any explanation of the repair journey, or any shortcomings identified within its service delivery. For example, it did not address the fact that the resident said she first raised the repairs in May 2022. If it had no internal record of the report in 2022, it should have investigated this and stated its finding.
The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation at stage 1. It explained that it would monitor the outstanding repairs through to completion and would then review the repair journey to calculate any compensation that may be applicable. This was fair, as its compensation and remedies policy stated that it would “usually offer compensation once [it had] completed any remedial actions or repairs”. However, because the landlord had failed to make the outcome of the investigation clear to the resident, the mention of compensation was confusing and unclear.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that it had raised new repairs to fix the outstanding issues, and, at her request, arranged an inspection with the repair contractor for 26 May 2023. This was appropriate and showed that it was taking action to put things right for the resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2023 to cancel the inspection as she was unwell and said that she would let the landlord know when she was well enough to rearrange.
On 9 June 2023, the landlord asked the resident to confirm if the outstanding repairs had been completed. While it is good practice to receive confirmation directly from the resident that repairs have been completed to a satisfactory standard, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to check its internal records or seek an update from the repair contractor in the first instance.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what date the inspection took place, but the resident responded and stated that although the windows had been secured, none of the repairs had been completed. The landlord replied to say the delays were due to the door being on order and once it was in stock, the repair contractor would be in touch to arrange for appointments for the scaffolding and repairs. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take as the delivery time for the door would have been outside its control, and it appropriately provided an explanation for the delay.
The same day, the resident requested for the landlord to provide a report of all the occasions she had contacted it regarding the repair issues, as environmental health wanted a copy. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this request or that it signposted her to the Subject Access Request (SAR) process as an alternative, which was unreasonable.
On 17 July 2023, the landlord asked the resident if the repairs had been carried out on 26 May 2023. As above, this was unreasonable as had it reviewed its internal records before contacting the resident, it would have known that she had cancelled the inspection for 26 May 2023 and that it had previously asked her the same question on 9 June 2023. It is evident that personnel changes within the landlord’s complaints team was a contributing factor to its inconsistent communication about the outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to have robust mechanisms in place to ensure effective continuity of service in the event of staff changes.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 July 2023, informing it that the repairs had not been undertaken and requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 19 July 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident that the issues remained unresolved and requested further information from her. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 July 2023 and said she had been ignored. This Service has seen not seen the resident’s response to this request and therefore is unable to make a conclusive finding in respect of these events. However, the resident’s feelings of being ignored are concerning and the importance of effective communication highlighted.
Between 17 July 2023 and 25 July 2023, the landlord and repairs contractor exchanged emails about the resident’s outstanding repairs. The repair contractor had identified the works required to the windows and balcony but required the landlord to approve the costs of the works before they could commence. The repair contractor also required confirmation from the landlord on what action it wanted to take with regards to the kitchen units, as it could not find a matching replacement. The evidence suggests that the landlord failed to take ownership and did not respond to the repair contractor, which caused further unnecessary delays for the resident. Given the comments from the repair contractor about the ceiling-to-floor windows requiring “urgent attention”, it is concerning that that the landlord did not take any appropriate action. With no justification as to why the repair contractor’s recommendations were not carried out, the Ombudsman finds the lack of progress unreasonable.
The outstanding repairs were incorrectly closed on the landlord’s system in August 2023. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of this, which was inappropriate. This indicates that the landlord did not use the complaint as an opportunity to take learning and ensure effective oversight of the repairs.
On 15 September 2023 the resident repeated her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and told the landlord that the repairs were still outstanding. This Service has not seen any evidence that it took any action at this point to attempt to resolve the outstanding repairs for the resident, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the complaint outlined several response timescale categories for its repairs and stated that residents may be entitled to compensation if it failed to complete them within its established guidelines. Due to the complexity of the repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door, it was fair for these repairs to be classified within its ‘specialist works’ or ‘programmed repair’ categories, which meant it was reasonable to expect the works to be completed within 60 calendar days. While this Service acknowledges that the resident delayed one of the inspection appointments in May 2023, when the stage 2 response was issued, the landlord had known about and failed to resolve the repair issues for the resident for over 70 weeks. This was an excessive and unacceptable delay.
At the time of the complaint, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) stated that factors to consider in formulating a remedy could include:
1. The length of time that a situation had been ongoing.
2. The frequency with which something occurred.
3. The severity of any service failure or omission.
4. The number of different failures.
5. The cumulative impact on the resident.
6. The resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
The landlord initially offered the resident £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience it had caused her, which was categorised as a ‘moderate failing’ within its compensation and remedies policy. Given that the resident was concerned for the safety of her children in the top floor flat, and that the repair contractor had advised the landlord that the windows “required urgent attention”, this Service considers that the offer was unfair, not in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and not proportionate to the failings identified within this report.
The landlord increased its compensation offer on 6 November 2023 to include an award for the loss of enjoyment of her home. It paid the resident a £1,250 (not including the award for complaint handling) in February 2024. While it is positive that the landlord reflected on its actions and increased its offer of compensation 1 working day after the response was sent, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of their complaints process. The revised offer likely caused the resident some confusion and concern about the calculation process used.
On 19 December 2023 the repair contractor contacted the resident to advise that it could install the windows and balcony door the following day. Given the short notice and time of year, the resident requested for the disruptive work to be arranged for the new year. The outstanding repairs to the windows and doors were then completed on 26 January 2024. The repairs to the kitchen units and floor were undertaken after the resident’s tenancy ended in March 2024.
Taking into consideration the delays the resident had already experienced, and the landlord’s acceptance of the urgency of the window and balcony repairs, it was unreasonable for some of the repairs to take a further 84 calendar days to be completed. It was similarly unreasonable for the remaining kitchen works to remain incomplete until the resident moved out of the property 5 months after the stage 2 response, although it is acknowledged this did not prevent the mutual exchange from taking place. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise and consider further compensation for these delays in line with its compensation and remedies policy.
In summary, the landlord:
1. Failed to action the repairs in adherence with its own policy timescales for an unreasonable period of time.
2. Displayed poor record keeping and communication with the repair contractor, which caused unnecessary delays for the resident.
3. Did not initially go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident when offering compensation.
4. Made a further, more proportionate offer of redress, but this was not presented as part of its stage 2 response.
5. Did not consider further redress to reflect delays beyond November 2023, including at the time the resident moved out of the property.
Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door. This is due to the revision of the stage 2 compensation offer, which was inadequately communicated, and the substantial delays to “urgent” repairs following the stage 2 response. As well as the amount it offered on 6 November 2023, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This is in recognition of the further delays not reflected in the landlord’s offer of £1,250 and has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s policy as well as this Service’s remedies guidance.
Following the Ombudsman’s special investigation into Catalyst Housing Limited (shortly before it merged with Peabody Trust to form the landlord) in March 2023, the landlord provided evidence to this Service that it had reviewed its record keeping processes to ascertain where there were gaps in service delivery. It further addressed its record keeping in a wider review of practice ordered by this Service in connection with case 202122259 (determined in November 2023, with the review concluding in October 2024). Therefore, the Ombudsman has made no orders in relation to record keeping.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were to be logged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days, unless an extension was agreed with the resident. Stage 2 escalation requests were to be received within 10 working days of the stage 1 response been issued, and the stage 2 response issued within 20 working days of the request being received. If an extension was required, this should not have exceeded a further 10 days.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 22 March 2023, 7 working days later. It is unclear why the acknowledgement was delayed and exceeded the 5-working–day timescale set out in the complaints policy. Within the acknowledgement of the complaint, it would have been good practice for the landlord to explain the complaints process to the resident and clarify its timescales for responding to the complaint.
The landlord then contacted the resident on 30 March 2023 to discuss the complaint, but as she was unavailable to speak, she requested a call back for the following day. There is no evidence to show that the landlord attempted to call the resident back as agreed, which was inappropriate. As well as failing to comply with the resident’s request for a call, this meant the landlord missed an opportunity to discuss the complaint with the resident, understand the impact of the situation on her, and ascertain the outcome sought.
The landlord’s delayed attempts to contact the resident about her complaint on 18 April 2023 and 3 May 2023 were inappropriate as it had already exceeded the timescales for the stage 1 response outlined within its complaints policy. This Service appreciates that speaking with the resident would have enabled the landlord to undertake a more detailed investigation. However, as it was unable to speak with the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to issue its stage 1 response based on the information it already had or to advise the resident that it had extended the timescales for response.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023. The Code at the time stated that “A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. This Service considers that it was fair for the landlord to request to inspect the outstanding repair issues mentioned within the complaint. However, as it caused its own delays in contacting the resident, and there is no evidence that it agreed an extension for the stage 1 complaint with her, its response time of 35 working days was unreasonable.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the Code also stated that within their written response, landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was therefore unreasonable, as it did not provide a clear explanation of the outcome of the investigation and failed to acknowledge if, or where, things had gone wrong within its service delivery which had led to the resident making the complaint.
Within its stage 1 response, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint, and, in line with its compensation and remedies policy, offer an appropriate amount of compensation for poor complaint handling.
An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right, and the landlord’s complaints policy stated that “all actions that are agreed to be completed within a complaint’s response will be monitored and followed through to resolution with updates to the complainant provided as and when needed.” Within its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had raised an inspection for the outstanding repairs, would monitor them through to completion, and would then review the repair and complaint journey to consider any compensation. Therefore, the landlord’s lack of action and ownership to undertake the repairs promised at the closure of the stage 1 complaint was inappropriate, and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, justifiably prompted the resident to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident on 19 July 2023 and apologised that the repair issues remained unresolved. Although the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint did not stipulate that stage 2 escalation requests were automatic, the landlord’s request for the resident to confirm some further information before it would consider the request was unreasonable, as she had already told it that she wanted to escalate the complaint because the repairs were still outstanding.
This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s response. However, on 25 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update, as she said that it had not responded to her email or voicemails. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and advised her that a different staff member was responsible for the management of her complaint, but it would chase an update from all relevant parties. The resident expressed her frustration with the landlord’s response and said that she was unhappy with the lack of ownership from the complaints team. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this up with the resident, which was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2023 and requested to make a further complaint. She said she was unhappy about the outstanding repairs and the landlord’s failure to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded the same day to advise that it would provide her with an update in 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that this happened, which was unreasonable and caused a further inconvenience in what was already a protracted complaints process for the resident.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 September 2023. The purpose of the Code is to ensure a landlord’s complaint handling process is accessible, consistent and enables the timely progression of complaints. As the resident required intervention from this Service to progress her complaint to stage 2, we find that the landlord acted inappropriately when the resident requested to escalate her complaint.
Upon instruction from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response was fair and transparent, and effectively summarised and evaluated the complaint handling since March 2023. The landlord identified and apologised for the complaint handling failings identified within this report and outlined how it was going to learn from them in the future.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy stated that a payment between £201 and £300 could be made for a severe complaint handling failure which caused a significant impact on the complainant. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation within its stage 2 response was fair and appropriate.
As outlined throughout this report, the landlord’s complaint handling failures evidently impacted on its handling of the substantive issues within the complaint. Considering the complaint handling overall, the landlord failed:
1. To comply with the timescales outlined within its own complaints policy and the Code.
2. To provide clear and consistent communication with the resident throughout the complaint process.
3. To effectively monitor and complete the actions and repairs it promised the resident at the closure of the stage 1 complaint.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, as the landlord adequately recognised and apologised for these failings within its stage 2 response, it provided reasonable redress to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman has not made any recommendations in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord was previously subject to a special investigation by the Ombudsman, and we published our findings in July 2023. The landlord has undertaken various measures to improve its performance subsequently. It has done this in cooperation with the Ombudsman. It is noted the landlord also updated its complaints policy and compensation and remedies policy in June 2024 in line with the revised Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen, windows and balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report (allowing for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report, including its delays in completing the repairs following the time of its stage 2 response.
2. Pay the resident the £1,250 it previously offered at stage 2 for its handling of the repairs up to November 2023, if it has not already done so. The landlord should pay this to the resident via the method of payment agreed with the resident previously.
3. Pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation. This in recognition of the outstanding repairs not being completed within a reasonable timeframe following the stage 2 response. This should be paid directly to the resident.
The landlord must provide this Service with proof it has actioned the above.

Recommendations

Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that the resident receives the £250 that the landlord previously offered at stage 2. Therefore, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay this via the method of payment agreed with the resident previously. It should provide evidence to this Service it has made the payment.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to obtain accurate and up-to-date details of her household’s vulnerabilities, including any health conditions she wishes to disclose, and ensures its records are updated accordingly. It should then provide written confirmation to the resident that it has done this.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.