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

South Cambridgeshire District Council (202331000)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331000

South Cambridgeshire District Council

22 July 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 response to the resident’s complaint about being served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) without prior communication, a lack of response from her housing officer regarding repairs, and the behaviour of a staff member.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in April 2022. The property is a semi-detached house. The resident has advised this Service that she has arthritis and an autoimmune deficiency. She has also reported having anxiety which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the landlord was receiving direct Universal Credit payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for both the resident’s ongoing rent payments and towards rent arrears.   
  3. The landlord sent a text to the resident on 9 August 2023, notifying her that her rent account was in arrears of £1,911.23 and that it would serve a NOSP that week. It asked her to make contact to discuss repaying the debt.
  4. The landlord issued a NOSP to the resident on 9 August 2023. The Notice outlined the arrears figure, and it said that if the resident did not pay these in full, the landlord would commence action to repossess the property after 11 September 2023. It asked that she contact its office to pay in full or make a arrangement.
  5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 14 August 2023 regarding a lack of communication from her housing officer. She noted that the officer had attended the property for the “6-week” check at the start of the tenancy after 5 months, had not told her whether she now had a “full” tenancy and had not responded to her since around November 2022.
  6. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised if the resident had felt ignored. It explained that the resident’s housing officer was on annual leave, and it would need to wait for them to return on 29 August 2023 to address the complaint. It confirmed that they had visited the property on 17 January 2023 and subsequently wrote to the resident on 14 February 2023 to inform her that her introductory tenancy would be extended due to rent arrears. It confirmed that this was extended until around 14 October 2023.
  7. The resident responded on 15 August 2023 and confirmed that she had tried to contact the officer via text and calls to the office. Every time the resident had asked for help, the officer had not responded, whether matters had been actioned or not. She had been sent a Notice of Seeking Possession stating that her rent arrears were over £1,900 and which gave her until 11 September 2023 to clear the balance. The rent department had given her 2 different figures and differing information about whether she needed to do anything, stating the letter was precautionary. The first she had heard regarding this was a text message the previous week. She asked for help as she had not missed a payment and a plan had been in place for over a year.
  8. On 16 August 2023, the resident sent the landlord screenshots of messages she had sent to her housing officer as well as communication from the rents team about the notice. The resident sent a text message on 6 December 2022 and raised concerns about repair issues related to her fence, windows and doors, cavity wall insulation and ineffective heating, mould through the ceiling in the bathroom which had previously been painted over, rain water coming through her door, the gutter that was leaking, cracks in the bathroom wall and ceiling that were getting worse, issues with heating and hot water which had since been resolved and that the kitchen and bathroom had been painted with emulsion paint which was not suitable. The officer had responded asking the resident to provide her address on the same day which the resident did. The resident then sent further texts asking for an update on 9 and 12 January 2023.
  9. On 17 August 2023, the landlord confirmed that the NOSP had been sent as a precautionary measure just in case anything changed due to the level of rent arrears. It confirmed that court action would be a last resort. It had asked if any of the repair issues raised within the text messages were outstanding.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2023 and explained that:
    1. It had discussed the resident’s concerns with the housing officer, who was not aware that any communication had gone unanswered but apologised if this was the case.
    2. It hoped that its emails to the resident regarding the NOSP had provided reassurance. It had raised the resident’s concern about a lack of prior communication with its rents team as this may have prevented the resident from worrying and raising a complaint.
    3. It confirmed that the housing officer had visited on 17 January 2023 as part of its mandatory 36-week visit, which was carried out prior to converting an introductory tenancy to a secure tenancy. It then sent a letter on 14 February 2023, confirming that due to the level of rent arrears, the introductory tenancy would be extended until October 2023. It confirmed that the tenancy had now been made secure and that the resident did not need any paperwork to confirm this.
    4. It noted that the resident had raised concerns about outstanding repair issues and confirmed that it would arrange an appointment for a surveyor to inspect.
    5. It apologised for any failure to contact the resident in a timely way. It expected its staff to respond to texts, calls, or emails within a few working days. It confirmed that it could investigate this matter further in future if the resident felt she was not being responded to.
    6. It apologised that the NOSP was not explained properly before being actioned and explained that it needed to serve a notice when arrears were high to ensure payment arrangements were carried out but admitted that a letter explaining this would have been a better approach.
  11. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 26 September 2023. She did not know how the landlord could be unaware that messages had gone unanswered and asked who was getting the requests for call backs via the contact centre. She felt misled in relation to the NOSP and that the landlord was going to take action regardless of payments being made toward the arrears. She also queried the appointment the housing officer had allegedly attended on 17 January 2023 and maintained that the visit did not happen.
  12. On 28 September 2023, the stage 1 complaint handler said that they would attend the property with the surveyor and was arranging a date. The resident asked that the surveyor made the appointment directly to avoid delays as the landlord had been aware of the repair issues for a long time.
  13. On 2 October 2023, the resident again asked to escalate the complaint. She was concerned that the staff member had only said they would attend the property after she had asked to escalate the complaint and was avoiding providing a response. She asked why they needed to visit the property and said she felt forced into having an uncomfortable conversation when she had already asked to escalate the complaint. She maintained that she had contacted the landlord via its call centre and via message for issues to be dealt with and was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response.
  14. The staff member advised that they intended to look at the outstanding issues and if the resident still wanted to escalate the complaint following the visit, she could. They hoped that the situation could be resolved without the need to escalate. It asked the resident to provide dates and times of contact she had made. It also advised that if the resident was against the visit, they could escalate the complaint.
  15. The resident expressed concern that if she escalated the complaint, the surveyor would not attend. She said that she had already provided date and time stamped messages and that the landlord’s contact centre should have records of her calls. The landlord then confirmed that the surveyor would attend on 5 October 2023 and the conversations continued with the resident disputing that the officer had attended the property on 17 January 2023. The resident reported that she felt ignored and bullied into agreeing the visit given the previous emails denying the escalation of the complaint. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not asked the housing officer to comment on the messages she had sent.
  16. On the same day, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated with a different member of staff, confirming that she was dissatisfied that the stage 1 complaint handler would not let her escalate the complaint until they had come to the property for a face-to-face visit. This was making her very anxious, and she had contacted her mental health worker.
  17. On 5 October 2023, the staff member attended with the surveyor. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to explain that she was unhappy they had attended when she had asked them not to. She had brought this to the staff member’s attention, and they had denied understanding that she did not want them to attend. She had said that she did not want them in the house and the surveyor had then said they would not enter without the staff member. Neither the surveyor or the staff member had a list of the repair issues she had sent, and she did not feel she had the opportunity to raise all of her concerns. The visit had taken place but had caused anxiety and she felt the process was against the landlord’s procedures. She again asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  18. The complaint was acknowledged on 5 October 2023. On 9 October 2023, the staff member emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of the survey. They provided a list of works, including lowering the soil level at the front of the property to prevent water coming into the living room, making good the ceiling repairs in the bathroom and kitchen, a mould company to attend to investigate the ongoing mould issues in the bathroom, and other repair issues. They confirmed that they would get back to the resident regarding the lack of communication from the housing officer in the next week and that if she was still dissatisfied then, she could escalate the complaint.
  19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 October 2023 and issued its response on 31 October 2023 as follows:
    1. It acknowledged, following receipt of evidence, that the housing officer had not responded to text messages the resident had sent in December 2022 and January 2023. It noted that this was unacceptable and that the housing officer had accepted a failure on their part and apologised. It had reminded the officer of the corporate timescales in which it expected them to respond to customers and the importance of supporting customers through their introductory tenancy period.
    2. It noted that the resident was dissatisfied that a staff member turned up to the property unannounced following her request that they did not attend. The staff member’s actions were an attempt to discuss the issues face to face and they felt that this would lead to a resolution, particularly in relation to any outstanding repairs. However, it admitted that the staff member should have acknowledged the resident’s request that they did not attend and looked for an alternative resolution method. Also, when they did arrive, and the resident said she was not comfortable, they should have left. It apologised for the way the matter was approached as no tenant should feel uncomfortable in their own home. It confirmed that it intended to provide feedback at its team meetings on the expectations for staff.
    3. It confirmed that if any repairs remained outstanding, the resident could report these directly and it would pass these to senior colleagues within its repairs and maintenance service.
    4. It noted that the resident’s concerns regarding the NOSP were previously addressed. It acknowledged that it should have communicated with the resident prior to issuing the Notice. It confirmed that its rents team spoke to the resident on 5 October 2023 and offered advice on future rent payments. It apologised if its approach to serve the notice upset or worried the resident.
  20. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in December 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She remained dissatisfied that a member of staff had come to the property despite her requests for them not to, and that they had refused to escalate her complaint on a number of occasions. She noted that her concerns initially related to repair issues and became about the lack of communication and support regarding the issues, and that her housing officer had said they visited her but had not. She also raised concerns about the ongoing repair issues, missed appointments, her council tax, and a continued lack of communication. She noted the impact of ongoing damp and mould on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident has commented on how the issues reported had impacted her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs following the complaint under consideration, including missed appointments and poor communication as well as delays. She has also referred to repair issues including with the air source heat pump at the property, damp coming through the floors, and concerns about the outbuilding attached to the property. In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. As these issues did not form part of the complaint under consideration, the Ombudsman is unable to adjudicate on these matters at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to the concerns through its internal complaints process before we can investigate. It is evident that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of various repair issues, including reports of damp, which has been taken into account as part of the orders and recommendations made below.
  4. The resident also raised concerns about how the landlord responded to reports about her council tax account within her communication to the Ombudsman. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about local authorities that do not specifically relate to their role as social landlords. As council tax does not form part of the local authority’s role as a landlord, this matter would be best suited to be investigated by the LGSCO. A complaint regarding this concern will need to have been made to the landlord before the resident is able to approach the LGSCO.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about being served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) without prior communication, a lack of response from her housing officer, and the behaviour of staff

NOSP and communication

  1. The landlord’s introductory tenancy procedure states that in cases of rent arrears, it would make every effort to make contact with the tenant and provide appropriate support. If all attempts prove unsuccessful, it may progress possession proceedings.
  2. The landlord has provided a process map showing how it approaches communication with residents where there are arrears on the rent account. For introductory tenancies, where the rent account is in arrears by 8 weeks, and no formal arrangement is in place or regular payments are being made, the landlord may issue a formal Notice of Proceedings for Possession.
  3. In this case, the landlord has utilised its complaints process to acknowledge that it should have communicated with the resident prior to issuing the NOSP on 9 August 2023 and explained the process in a better way.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was in receipt of Universal Credit and that the landlord was receiving direct payments for both the ongoing rent and towards the arrears balance. There is no evidence that circumstances had changed or that there were additional arrears that had built prior to it issuing the NOSP, meaning that the Notice was likely to cause unnecessary confusion and distress to the resident.
  5. The Notice also stated that the landlord would begin action to repossess the property after 11 September 2023 if the arrears were not paid in full. This caused unnecessary time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing additional information in relation to what the notice meant. The landlord later confirmed that this was sent as a precautionary measure, as an agreement had already been in place to pay towards the arrears.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident and advise that it would provide feedback to its rents team regarding communication. It also acted reasonably by confirming that the tenancy was now a secure tenancy within its subsequent communication. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have considered paying compensation to the resident for the confusion, distress, and inconvenience caused by the lack of clear communication and failure to act in line with policy, which does not provide a basis for issuing a “precautionary” NOSP.

Lack of communication from the resident’s housing officer

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident provided the landlord with screenshots of the messages (sent in December 2022 and January 2023) to the landlord on 16 August 2023 to support her initial complaint. This was prior to its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2023. The landlord was evidently aware of the text messages at the time of the stage 1 complaint response as it said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit to assess any outstanding repair issues which she had mentioned within the texts. It was unreasonable for the landlord to advise that it was unaware of any communication that had gone unanswered and apologising “if” this was the case within its initial response. It missed the opportunity to show accountability for the lack of response which amounts to a failing.
  2. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2023 that the housing officer had not responded to text messages the resident had sent in December 2022 and January 2023. It acknowledged that it was unacceptable for the staff member not to respond and acted fairly by passing on apologies from the staff member for the failure on their part. It also acted reasonably by confirming the actions it had taken to remind the staff member of their obligations in an attempt to prevent similar failings in future.  
  3. The resident had also advised that she made multiple calls to the landlord’s office that had gone unanswered. As part of our investigation, the landlord was asked to provide contact records, indicating when the contact was made and the notes of what was said on each call. The landlord has not provided contact logs, indicating that it may not have adequate systems in place to record customer contact. It also failed to make any further comment about the resident’s report that she had made multiple phone calls in its responses to the complaint.
  4. In addition, the resident raised concern following the stage 1 complaint response about a visit from the housing officer which was alleged to have taken place on 17 January 2023, noting that this did not take place and confirming that she had been at home on the day. The landlord did not respond to her concerns or confirm its understanding of whether the visit took place or not.
  5. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine the level of time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns or whether this amounts to a failing in the landlord’s communication with her. There is also a lack of evidence to confirm that there had been a tenancy visit on 17 January 2023 as stated. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

The conduct of the stage 1 complaint handler

  1. The staff member who handled the complaint at stage 1 said that they would arrange a surveyor’s visit in order to assess any outstanding repairs as part of the initial complaint response. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 September 2023 (which will be discussed in further delay below), the staff member said that they would attend the property with the surveyor.
  2. The resident made several comments between 28 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, indicating that she was uncomfortable with the staff member visiting her property. She initially stated that she would prefer the surveyor contact her directly to make the appointment. She added concern that the staff member had only said they would be attending with the surveyor after she had asked to escalate the complaint, asking why they needed to attend and saying that she felt forced into an uncomfortable conversation. She later added that she felt bullied into agreeing to the visit as the staff member had previously denied the escalation of the complaint.
  3. The staff member stated that the surveyor would be attending but had not clearly confirmed their attendance before the visit on 5 October 2023, despite the resident indicating that she would be uncomfortable with them attending. This evidently caused the resident distress as indicated in her subsequent communication to the landlord.
  4. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acted fairly by addressing the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of the staff member. It acknowledged that the staff member should have identified the resident’s request for them not to attend, and left the property when the resident had said she was not comfortable on the day of the visit. It identified that while their intentions in completing the visit were reasonable, they should have looked for an alternative resolution method. It acted reasonably by apologising to the resident for making her feel uncomfortable in her own home.
  5. This was a reasonable response. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had spoken to the complaint handler as part of the response and provided specific feedback to them to prevent similar situations occurring in the future rather than only confirm it had provided feedback to a wider group of colleagues and would do so in team meetings in general. This would have demonstrated that it had taken her concerns seriously about how the visit made her feel. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have put right the impact by offering suitable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 of its complaints process, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If the target date at either stage cannot be met, the landlord would inform the resident of a revised target timescale. It would not extend the timescale by more than a further 10 working days without good reason.
  2. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 14 August 2023. The landlord acted reasonably in the first instance by explaining to the resident on 15 August 2023 that it would need to wait for the housing officer (who was the focus of the complaint) to return from leave before it could fully respond. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the staff member’s return to ensure that it could speak to them to fully investigate what had happened.
  3. However, the landlord confirmed that the staff member was due to return from leave on 29 August 2023. It did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 21 September 2023. This was 28 working days since the complaint was made and outside of the landlord’s 10 working days timescale once the staff member returned from leave. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident was adequately updated on the progress of the complaint at any stage or provided with an expected timescale. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay, or the inconvenience caused, within its subsequent response.
  4. The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 26 September 2023 and asked for the complaint to be escalated. The staff member then said that they would attend with the surveyor to assess the repairs but did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. She asked for the complaint to be escalated again on 2 October 2023. There was then a series of communications on the same day. The staff member said that they would visit the property to attempt to resolve the issues and that following the visit, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the complaint. They also said that if the resident was against the visit, they would escalate the complaint. The resident then said that she felt “bullied” into agreeing to the visit, with the previous emails denying the escalation of the complaint.
  5. Following a resident’s request to escalate their complaint, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to do so. While it may be reasonable to complete other actions in an attempt to resolve a complaint, this should not prevent the complaint from being passed to stage 2 at the resident’s request. In this case, the landlord should have escalated the complaint when requested to prevent any unnecessary barriers to its complaints process. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns about escalating her complaint with a different member of staff on 2 October 2023.
  6. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated on 5 October 2023. It is evident that the staff member was unaware that the complaint had been escalated as they had said on 9 October 2023 that the resident could escalate the complaint if she was still dissatisfied after they provided a further update the following week.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its process on 31 October 2023. This was 25 working days since the resident’s initial request to escalate. The delay in issuing the response was unlikely to cause significant inconvenience. However, it is evident that the resident needed to spend an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing the escalation as a result of the landlord’s actions. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the difficulties she had faced when attempting to escalate the complaint within its subsequent response, which was likely to make the resident feel unheard, and that her concerns had not been taken seriously.
  8. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint and engage with the substantive issue within its responses. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a surveyor’s visit at stage 1 to assess outstanding repair issues given the length of time that had passed since the resident’s text message in December 2022 and the complaint in August 2023.
  9. It is evident that the focus of the complaint was about the officer’s lack of communication. The landlord acknowledged that the officer had failed to respond to messages sent in December 2022 and January 2023 within its stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not comment on whether the visit on 17 January 2023 had gone ahead, which the resident disputed.
  10. In addition, the Ombudsman has found failings in how the landlord responded to the issues related to repairs. At the time of the stage 2 complaint response, the surveyor’s visit had taken place and the resident had been provided with a list of works due to be undertaken. It was unreasonable for the landlord to say that the resident could make contact regarding any outstanding repair issues. It should have ultimately had oversight of the works due to be completed and provided reassurance to the resident as to how it would resolve the issues given the communication failings identified. The landlord’s response at this stage indicates that it had not liaised with the stage 1 complaint handler or repairs team to review communications or determine the nature of the outstanding repairs. This was likely to cause frustration to the resident.
  11. In addition, having acknowledged that its failure to respond to the resident’s messages was unacceptable, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to engage with the content of the messages to determine the impact of the failing. In view of the failure to respond, the landlord should have confirmed its position as to whether it believed the repair issues raised within the message in December 2022 had been resolved or whether there had been delays in handling the repairs as a result.
  12. Within the message, sent on 6 December 2022, the resident raised specific concerns related to her fence, windows, cavity wall insulation, inefficient heating, mould affecting the ceiling of the bathroom, water coming through the door when it rained, the gutter that was leaking, cracks in the bathroom wall and ceiling, time spent without heating due to repair delays, being unable to clean the mould in the bathroom due to the paint used, and paint flaking and peeling in the kitchen.
  13. While the Ombudsman has seen evidence of repair records which show that some repairs had been attended to within this period (December 2022 to August 2023), it remains unclear as to whether the repair issues were fully resolved. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the water ingress or damp and mould, which is a potential hazard, had been addressed. The landlord did not consider how the failure to respond to the messages may have contributed to repair delays or fully engage with the substantive issues. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge failings, address the complaint in full and show it had taken her concerns seriously.

Summary

  1. In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about being served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) without prior communication, a lack of response from her housing officer, and the behaviour of staff. While the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging some failings in its communication, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right for the resident or fully acknowledge the impact of the failings. It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted for the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has said it does not have a compensation policy. In line with the Complaint Handling Code which became statutory on 1 April 2024, landlords are expected to have systems in place to ensure that they can provide remedies at any stage of the complaints process, including but not limited to financial remedies. The Code does not specify that landlords must have a compensation policy. However, it is recommended that the landlord takes steps to form a process to be used to offer remedies to residents through its complaints process to acknowledge where things have gone wrong, if it has not already done so. This should include offers of compensation to account for inconvenience and distress, or time and trouble caused by service failings.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint being served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) without prior communication, a lack of response from her housing officer regarding repairs, and the behaviour of a staff member.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay £450 compensation directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears). This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble spent by her as a result of the landlord’s failings.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to contact the resident regarding her ongoing concerns related to repairs and raise a new complaint under its formal complaints process to address these should she wish to pursue this.
  4. The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord completes a self assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) alongside its current record keeping practices, if it has not already done so. This should be completed with a specific focus on recording its communication with residents.
  2. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord takes steps to form a process to be used to offer remedies to residents through its complaints process to account for the impact of service failings. This should include offers of compensation to account for inconvenience and distress, or time and trouble caused by service failings.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this Service its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.