Southern Housing (202218618)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218618

Southern Housing

17 February 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of cracks in the hallway.
2. Concerns about the decking in the garden.
3. Reports of repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate.
4. Reports of repairs to the guttering.
5. Concerns about the boiler flue and pergola roof.
6. Request for compensation following a house fire.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2005. The resident and her daughter have mental health difficulties that are known to the landlord.
The resident made a complaint via telephone to the landlord on 18 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged her complaint via email on 24 November 2022. It told her that it would investigate her concerns regarding its handling of repairs to the guttering, cracks in the hallway, and the garage roof, door frame and runner.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day and asked it to also include some additional issues within its complaint investigation. These included a leaking shower, her request for permission to install a water butt, repairs to the boiler flue and pergola roof, concerns about decking in the garden, and repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate.
The following day (25 November 2022), the resident emailed the landlord again to advise that she had also asked it to include a previous complaint regarding a fire in her loft that was never resolved.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 26 May 2023. It said:
1. With regards to the cracks in the hallway, an asbestos survey was undertaken on 18 July 2022 and a copy of the report was sent to the resident on 4 May 2023. It would arrange an inspection to assess the works required.
2. It would need to inspect the decking as it was outside of its “repairs remit”.
3. The fence issue was first reported on 1 September 2022. The fence and gate repairs were scheduled for 9 June 2023.
4. The guttering issue was first reported on 18 March 2022. Its repair contractor attended on 1 April 2022, but the issue was not fixed. The repair was raised again in September 2022 and the works completed on 27 October 2022.
5. The boiler flue had been covered in a manner that breached regulations. The works to the roof space were complex and required joint visits by both its gas and roofing contractors which contributed to an extended timescale. The works were completed on 16 May 2023.
6. It had no record of a fire at the property. It asked the resident to provide it with evidence to “prove otherwise” and it would then investigate this as a separate issue. It said that any loss of personal belongings should be claimed against her home contents insurance.
7. It would need to inspect the garage to assess the required works.
8. It upheld the complaint due to the delays and lack of communication. It offered the resident £450 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £60 for repair delays.
  2. £65 for complaint handling.
  3. £25 for service failure.
  4. £300 for inconvenience caused.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 June 2023. She said that:
1. The landlord had not investigated her complaint fully and had failed to consider the significant distress the issues had caused her household.
2. She disputed the landlord’s findings about the guttering and stated that it was not cleared until 16 May 2023.
3. She had an email from the repair contractor that stated the decking would be removed and replaced with an alternative. The decking had since caused an injury, so she had paid for it to be removed as she could not risk any further accidents. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the works.
4. She disputed the landlord’s findings about the fence repair and had emails that proved the issue was first raised in 2021. She said that as the work was not completed properly, it resulted in further damage to the fence, security lights and the canopy. She said that since the stage 1 complaint, the service was inadequate from its repair contractors. The gate still did not fit and the lock to secure the gate could not be installed. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the damage in the garden.
5. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response regarding the boiler flue and pergola roof. She had repeatedly made it aware of the issues and she was ignored. She had also requested reasonable adjustments for the repair and requested no unannounced visits as this would exacerbate her daughter’s condition. She also had to pay for childcare arrangements to prevent distress to her daughter, and as there were so many unnecessary visits, this was costly for her.
6. She was “shocked” that the landlord had no record of the fire. She had made a subject access request (SAR) previously, which showed information about the fire. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the items that were damaged during the fire.
7. She was unhappy that following the stage 1 complaint, the landlord had failed to contact her to arrange an appointment to inspect the decking, garage, and cracks in the hallway.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry that that the inspection was not arranged following the stage 1 complaint. It accepted that this caused further delays in progressing the outstanding repairs.
2. The repairs contractor had determined that the gate was in good condition, there were no defects with the wall, and all fencing works were completed with no further works required. It had arranged for an inspection of the issues on 20 September 2023.
3. It understood the resident had been in direct contact with the roofing contractor regarding the guttering repair and she would be provided with an appointment date to resolve the issue.
4. It was sorry for the delays and poor communication during the stage 1 complaint.
5. It was sorry for the “misinformation” in its stage 1 response regarding the fire in the loft. Upon further investigation, its records showed that there was a fire caused by its repair contractor. It supplied the resident with contact information for its insurance company.
6. It upheld the complaint. In recognition of its service failures, and as a “goodwill gesture”, it offered the resident an additional £230 in compensation. However, the breakdown of its offer amounted to £355 and was calculated as follows:
  1. £10 for failure to complete work by second appointment date.
  2. £20 for missed appointment by contractor.
  3. £75 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  4. £125 for service failures.
  5. £15 failure to follow process or policy.
  6. £15 repeated visits to resolve outstanding issues.
  7. £15 failure to respond using reasonable adjustment.
  8. £15 for miscommunication.
  9. £50 for unsatisfactory handling of complaint.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 7 October 2023, the resident provided the landlord with her bank details, so it was able process her compensation payment. The resident informed us that to date, the landlord has not paid her any compensation.
In January 2025, the resident told us that some of the repair issues raised within her complaint are still outstanding. These will be outlined and assessed within the relevant sections of the report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident feels that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property affected her family’s health. While we do not doubt or underestimate her 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 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
On 18 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to complain about its handling of repairs to the garage roof, door frame and runner. The landlord did not provide a response within its stage 1 response, but advised the resident that it would arrange an inspection to review the repairs. The repairs were then not referenced within its stage 2 response. Additionally, on 24 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to complain about its response to the shower leaking and her request to install a water butt. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the handling of these issues, as it did not reference its findings in either of its complaint responses.
Furthermore, within the resident’s correspondence with us, she also mentioned some outstanding repairs to the bathroom. This was not included in her original complaint. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of these issues. We will, however, address any relevant complaint handling failings within the relevant section of the report. The resident may refer these matters to us for separate investigation once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
We acknowledge that the landlord offered the resident compensation as a way of putting things right for her. It offered her £450 compensation at stage 1. It is unclear if it then offered £230 or £355 at stage 2. Aside from the complaint handling (a total of £125), it is unclear how much compensation is apportioned for each complaint definition. We are therefore unable to fully assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s offers of compensation. Except for complaint handling, any orders of compensation we make replace any compensation offered by the landlord. We have also assessed the landlord’s offer of compensation within the complaint handling section of this report.
Throughout our investigation it appeared that the landlord had not supplied evidence to support numerous aspects of the case. We therefore requested further information, including the repair history for the property from as early as April 2021. However, some pieces of evidence remained absent from its submission and some of these examples have been highlighted within the report. The level of evidence has made it difficult for us to make a full assessment of these aspects of the case. It is, however, indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. The Ombudsman has taken this into consideration in determining the case.

Reports of cracks in the hallway

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house. The structure includes the walls, ceilings, and the foundations. Additionally, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will keep the inside walls and ceilings of its properties in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs (anything that does not pose an immediate risk to safety, security, or health) will be categorised as “routine” repairs. It does not specify a timescale for this type of repair, but states that it will complete the repair as quickly as possible. However, in January 2022, the landlord provided its residents with an update on its repair timescales via its website. It stated that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a wait time of up to 3 months for some non-emergency repairs. This has been taken into consideration within our assessment.
On 8 November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that there were cracks on the ceiling and wall of the hallway. Within her email, she provided photographs of the cracks and asked the landlord to visit the property to review the issues. We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised a repair on its internal systems or informed the resident of any appointments to rectify the issue. This was inappropriate, as its repairs policy states that when a resident raises a non-emergency repair, it will confirm the date and time of the appointment using their preferred communication method.
The resident also stated within her email on 8 November 2021 that the landlord had previously inspected the issues “a long time ago”. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no evidence that she reported the repair before this date. We have therefore been unable to make a finding in relation to this, as our findings must be supported by documentary evidence.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord raised a repair that stated, “management survey to property and a refurbishment survey of the hall wall textured coating”. It is unclear from the records provided what date the landlord had arranged for an asbestos survey to be undertaken, which is a record keeping failure within its handling of the case. However, within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it stated that a survey was undertaken on 18 July 2022. The resident has not disputed this fact, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it was undertaken on this date. We find that it was unreasonable that an asbestos survey was undertaken 8 months after the resident had first reported the issue. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not provide the resident with any updates about the repair during this period (between November 2021 and July 2022).
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions between 18 August 2022 and 9 December 2022 to request an update on the repair. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or provided her with an update, which caused her to feel she was being ignored.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, it confirmed that the asbestos survey had been undertaken, and as an outstanding action, it would arrange a surveyor to attend the property to assess the cracks in the walls. This was appropriate and showed that it was aiming to put things right for the resident. However, after the stage 1 complaint, we have seen no evidence that an inspection appointment was made with the resident. This was inappropriate, given the delays she had already experienced. This was also one of the reasons why the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 June 2023.
On 11 September 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it was going to arrange an appointment to inspect the cracks in the wall. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 12 September and 18 September 2023 to ask it to confirm the time of an inspection appointment on 20 September 2023, as she needed to make arrangements for her disabled daughter to be out of the property. The landlord responded on 19 September 2023 to confirm that the appointment would take place at approximately 3pm. We find that the landlord’s delayed response was unreasonable, as it did not give the resident adequate time to make childcare arrangements.
The inspection undertaken by the landlord on 20 September 2023 confirmed that that there was cracking at the top of the landing and the hallway, and to the left and bottom right of the window. It also noted that there was some cracking on the external rendering of the property. The evidence suggests that the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that a structural engineer would visit the property to assess the building for any movement. This was appropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023. It apologised to the resident for failing to arrange the inspection sooner, which was appropriate. As mentioned earlier in the report, it did not specify if its compensation offer was in recognition for the failures identified in the handling of this specific repair, therefore we are unable to assess if it reasonably proposed to put things right for the resident.
On 28 September 2023, the landlord requested the repairs contactor to arrange a structural survey of the property. The contractor’s structural engineer visited the property on 17 October 2023. They provided the landlord with their report on 20 October 2023. They recommended the following works:
1. A CCTV survey to assess the condition of the underground drainage, to ensure the drains were free flowing and not leaking through cracked or displaced joints. If damage to the drains was identified, then this should be made good to ensure no water was leaking into the ground causing erosion of the fine soils or changes in the ground water regime. The survey should also include the surface water drainage at the front of the adjoining neighbouring property.
2. The size of the tree at the front of the property to be managed on a regular basis to prevent excessive growth and spread of the roots.
3. The cracking externally to the render to be made good to maintain weather tightness to the wall.
4. The cracking internally to be made good during normal decoration works. The cracks to be filled, using flexible fillers at the junction of the walls and ceiling where necessary.
5. The situation to be monitored, and if the cracking progressed to a more severe scale, then a further inspection was required and consideration given to undertaking ground investigation works.
It is positive that the landlord raised most of the repairs recommended by the surveyor on 6 November 2023. However, before it allocated the work to its repair contractors, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with the findings of the survey, and details of the action it proposed to take to address each issue. As there were several issues to resolve for different repair trades, it also would have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with a timebound schedule of works. It is our opinion that, had the landlord provided the resident with an update following the survey, she would likely have had a clearer understanding of the action it was taking to resolve the issues in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2023 to express her dissatisfaction that the repairs were still outstanding. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns. This was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024 and 29 April 2024 and informed it that she was still waiting for repairs to be completed. During the call on the 29 April 2024, the evidence suggests that the resident was transferred to the repairs team to arrange the outstanding repairs. However, we have seen no evidence of what repairs were booked, which is another record keeping failure within the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
The repair records show that a repair was raised on 3 June 2024 for a decorator to attend to repair a crack in the hallway. The same issues were then raised between 7 June 2024 and 14 August 2024. This is another record keeping failure, as it is not clear to this Service if any repairs were undertaken during this period.
In January 2025, the resident informed this Service that the landlord had arranged for a contractor to assess the drains. She was unable to confirm the date of the appointment but said that it informed her that it had some concerns that the roof of the neighbouring property was causing the cracks to her property. She said that she had received no further updates, and the same cracks were still there.
As mentioned earlier in the report, we asked the landlord to provide us with evidence of any completed works that were recommended in the October 2023 survey. However, as it failed to do so, this supports the resident’s assertion that the work remains uncompleted.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the hallway. This is because:
1. The landlord failed to fully adhere to its repair obligations outlined within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident and the repair contractor was inadequate and ultimately caused unnecessary delays in completing the work.
3. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the repair was insufficient.
4. The evidence suggests that the repair is still outstanding, 39 months after the resident first reported it to the landlord and 17 months after it issued its stage 2 response.
5. It is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation at both stages of the complaint was in recognition of its failings for this specific issue. Therefore, we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. Additionally, as some of the issues are still outstanding, the resident is entitled to further compensation.
Our award of compensation has been calculated in line with our guidance on remedies. Though we considered the landlord’s compensation matrix in our calculation, we do not consider its usual maximum award of £50 for delayed repairs reflects the circumstances of this case.

Concerns about the decking in the garden

The landlord’s repair policy states that the resident is responsible for repairing damage caused to garden sheds or similar structures. Additionally, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not require the landlord to repair or maintain anything the tenant is entitled to remove from the property.
However, the landlord’s repair policy states that if a repair is the resident’s responsibility, it should inform the resident of this and ask them to carry out the repair themselves. It confirms that the landlord may conduct repairs that a resident is usually responsible for, to make the property safe or where failure to act may have direct health implications for a resident.
On 2 September 2022, the resident reported that the decking (that was installed prior to her moving into the property) was in “disrepair”. On 12 September 2022, the landlord raised a repair to inspect the decking “to decide if it would be for [it] to replace”. Given that the resident had lived in the property for 17 years and the repairs policy stated that the landlord would not repair damage caused to garden sheds or similar structures, this was reasonable. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain its reasoning to the resident, as to why it wanted to inspect the decking rather than automatically repair it.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2022 to inform it that the decking was dangerous as the boards were sticking up and the frame was rotten. She pointed out that the landlord had undertaken a stock condition survey recently, and she was told to report the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, which was inappropriate. Given the resident’s comments, it should have attended the property as soon as possible to make the decking safe. Its actions were at odds with its repairs policy, which states that in all instances, the resident’s welfare, health, and safety is its primary concern.
On 1 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that she had not received a response, and that the decking was “even more” of a hazard. The landlord responded the same day and said that it was not aware of an issue with the decking. We find that this response was inappropriate, as had it reviewed its repair records, it would have established that the resident had already reported the issue 2 months earlier.
Within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 24 November 2022, she informed the landlord again that the decking was dangerous and rotten. The landlord also failed to respond to her concerns on this occasion. This was unacceptable.
On 30 January 2023, the repairs contractor provided the landlord and resident with a copy of an inspection report following a visit to the property “some time ago”. The contractor said that it believed the report had previously been missed. Again, the landlord did not provide details of this inspection, which is a record keeping failure. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that this was the stock condition survey appointment that the resident referenced in her email on 13 September 2022. The report stated that the timber decking was in a rotten, unsafe and unlevel state, and overall, in a “very dangerous condition”. Given the seriousness of the comments, it is concerning that the landlord still failed to take appropriate action to make the decking safe. It was also unreasonable that the evidence of these email trails was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord. This is another failing within its record keeping.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, it said that it would need to inspect the issues raised with the decking before it could proceed, due to the matter being “outside of the repairs remit”. This was fair, given that the repair was not covered under its repairs policy. However, given that it was already aware of the decking’s poor condition, it should have attended the property to make it safe. Additionally, the repairs contractor had already inspected the decking, so we find that it was unnecessary for it to require a second inspection. This added to the resident’s frustration that she was having to make herself available for repeated appointments.
Within the resident’s complaint escalation request on 16 June 2023, she told the landlord that the repairs contractor had already informed her that the decking would be removed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate her comments further and liaise with the contractor to discuss its findings. We have seen no evidence that it did so, which was inappropriate.
The landlord arranged an inspection of the decking for 20 September 2023. The report stated that the resident had removed the decking herself as it was dangerous, but she was unhappy because she had an email from the repairs contractor that stated it should remove it. The landlord was already aware of these facts before the inspection. As mentioned earlier, we therefore find that the visit was unnecessary as it did not provide the landlord with any new information. The report also did not make any recommendations on what it was going to do to put things right for the resident.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 September 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to confirm its position on the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the costs of removing the decking. Its omission to do so was unsatisfactory, and a missed opportunity to progress the issue towards resolution.
While we acknowledge that the landlord had no obligation to repair the decking, we find there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the decking. This is because:
1. The landlord failed to respond to a potential health and safety issue on numerous occasions.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate.
3. The landlord failed to confirm its position to the resident regarding her request for it to reimburse her for removing the decking herself.
While we acknowledge that the landlord caused the resident unnecessary delays, it would not be appropriate for us to make an order for it to reimburse the resident for the costs of removing the decking, as it was not within its obligation to repair. However, an order of compensation has been made in accordance with our guidance on remedies, to reflect the distress and inconvenience the landlord caused the resident in its handling of the matter.

Reports of repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping the exterior of the property in good repair. This includes boundary walls and fences for which it is responsible.
The resident first reported a repair to the fence on 20 April 2021. She told the landlord that it was banging into her neighbour’s conservatory. The same day, the landlord emailed its repairs contractor to raise a repair. This was appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2021 to request an update on the repair. The evidence suggests that her request for a call back was passed to the relevant team, but we have seen no evidence that she received a response. This was inappropriate.
On 25 April 2021, the resident provided the landlord with a copy of her neighbour’s deeds, which showed that the fence in need of repair was within the landlord’s boundary. She said that the neighbour had also reported the fence “several times” to the landlord. As we have seen no evidence of this, we are unable to make an assessment on the matter.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 April 2021. It apologised for its delay in responding to her and forwarded the information to the repairs contactor, asking it to investigate the matter urgently. This was appropriate and timely.
It is unclear from the evidence provided if the original issue with the fence was fixed. This is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that it was repaired, as we have seen no further reference to it.
On 19 July 2021, the resident reported that the gate had “dropped” and she could not lock it. She informed the landlord that this was the same gate that had already been replaced 3 times. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports. This was inappropriate and at odds with its repairs policy.
The next contact from the resident about the gate was 13 months later, on 18 August 2022. She told the repairs contractor that she had not received a response to her concerns. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update on the repair. Again, this was unsatisfactory.
The resident contacted the landlord on a further 7 occasions between 31 October 2022 and 2 May 2023. Within her correspondence during the 6-month period, she told the landlord that:
1. She had received no contact about the garden wall, gate, and fence, and all the issues were still outstanding.
2. The fence panel was becoming more damaged and was blowing in front of the gate, restricting access. It had also broken a security light that she felt should be replaced by the landlord.
3. She wanted to make a formal complaint (on 24 November 2022).
4. The gate would not close, which posed a security risk as it opened onto a pavement and main road. She said that this created an unsafe situation for her disabled daughter.
An assessment of the landlord’s stage 1 response is made within the complaint handling section of this report. As promised within the response, the repairs contractor attended the property on 9 June 2023. It changed the fence panel and repaired the gate. It stated that the gate needed replacing, as well as the wall, as it was “very wobbly”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord actioned these recommendations, which was inappropriate.
We have also seen no evidence that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s concerns that she raised within her request to escalate the complaint on 16 June 2023. This was unreasonable, as the complaints process should not delay the actioning of any outstanding repairs.
The landlord arranged an inspection of the gate on 20 September 2023. The resulting report stated that:
1. The fence repair had been completed.
2. The resident said that the repairs contractor had informed her that it had ordered her a new, non–standard width gate, but she had not received any updates. The landlord noted that it would contact the repair contractor.
3. The resident would like the new gate to have a yale lock reinstated as she needed to keep her daughter secure in the garden, due to her vulnerabilities.
4. The top bricks of the garden wall were crumbling and falling onto pedestrians.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 September 2023, it said that the repairs contractor confirmed that the gate was in a good condition, there were no defects with the brickwork, and all fencing works were completed. Given what the inspection had identified the day prior and on 9 June 2023, we find that the landlord’s response was inappropriate and factually incorrect.
Notes from a repair undertaken on 14 November 2023 stated that the brickwork was “very wobbly” and that a gate could not be installed until the wall had been rebuilt. This had already been confirmed in June 2023 and September 2023. This therefore supports the resident’s concerns that her time was being wasted by avoidable appointments.
On 18 December 2023, the resident was “carded” for no access by the repair contractor. This was for a repair to “make good wall”. The following day, the landlord asked the resident to confirm if the repair had gone ahead. She responded to advise that it had not, because it was an unannounced visit. As we have seen no evidence that the landlord had informed the resident of the appointment, we find that it acted inappropriately on this occasion.
On 22 January 2024, the resident informed this Service that the repairs to the gate and wall were outstanding. She said that she had requested an update from the landlord “every week”. While we do not dispute her comments, we have seen no evidence of this so are unable to comment on the matter.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on 13 March 2024. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This was inappropriate and caused the resident to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The landlord arranged a survey to the fence and wall on 19 June 2024. The survey concluded that the gate had been replaced. It also stated that the wall needed “attention”, and that the top 2 courses of brick needed to be replaced either side of the gate. It noted the resident’s comments that the gate was not wide enough, however the survey said that it was consistent with other openings on the street. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2024 to discuss the survey. She highlighted that gate had not been replaced, and that it had been a temporary repair while the new gate was on order. As we have seen no evidence to suggest that the gate had been replaced, there was obvious confusion on this point, which was unhelpful.
The resident also stated that the repair contractor had removed the mortice lock and gate number when it carried out the temporary fix (on 9 June 2023). Although we have seen no photographs of the repairs undertaken in June 2023, the evidence suggests the landlord did not dispute that it had removed the locks, so it is reasonable to assume that it did. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for any door locks, catches or ironmongery that they have added. We also acknowledge the landlord’s comments, on 19 June 2024, that it was not responsible for adding locks to gates. However, it is noted that when the landlord replaced the previous gate in 2016 it provided the resident with locks and catches for safety reasons due to her personal circumstances. We find that it would have been reasonable for it to reinstall the locks, to ensure the resident was in the same position as before.
On 3 July 2024, in response to her dissatisfaction, the landlord contacted the resident to book in another surveyor appointment to inspect the gate. It believed the repairs were completed but wanted to review the matter again due to the resident’s comments. This was reasonable. However, it is noted that the resident was unhappy with this course of action as she did not feel it was necessary, given she had already had numerous inspections.
On 19 September 2024, the repairs contractor visited the property and took date–stamped photographs of the gate. Its notes stipulated that the resident struggled to open and lock the gate, and that she was aware a gate replacement would need to be discussed with landlord. It also stated that it attempted to “make the gate usable and replace half of lock that is left on gate as operative removed another half”. The landlord provided this to us as evidence that the repair was “fully complete”. We find that this information is unclear and contradictory, and again is indicative of poor record keeping within its handling of the repair.
During contact with this Service in January 2025, the resident informed us that the brickwork of the wall had still not been repaired, and that the “temporary” gate was still in situ and was not fit for purpose.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate. This is because:
1. The repair to the gate and wall was first reported on 19 July 2021. To date, the evidence suggests that the repairs have not been fully completed 43 months later.
2. The landlord had inadequate processes in place for ensuring continuity and contact with the resident.
3. The landlord’s recording keeping was poor.
4. It is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation at both stages of the complaint was in recognition of its failings for this specific repair.
An order of compensation has been made in recognition of the failures identified in this report. This has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as explained in the previous section).

Reports of repairs to the guttering

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes repairs to guttering.
The resident first reported an issue with faulty guttering on 22 June 2021. A further repair was then reported 3 months later, on 22 September 2021. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to either request. This was inappropriate and at odds with its repairs policy.
On 7 February 2022, the resident reported a problem with the guttering again. The landlord raised a repair on 18 March 2022. This was almost 6 weeks after the resident’s report and caused the repair to be inappropriately delayed. It then added a note to the system on 20 March 2022, which stated that it needed to replace two union joints to the rear guttering. It added a further note on 1 April 2022, which stated that the guttering needed to be cleaned, and a new half round joint and end cap to be installed. We have seen no evidence that the landlord attended the property to undertake the work that was required, nor did it update her on the delay. This was inappropriate.
During the 4-month period between 10 August 2022 and 9 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on a further 4 occasions to inform it that the guttering repairs were still outstanding. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update on the repair, which was inappropriate and caused her feelings of being deprioritised.
Within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she disputed the landlord’s findings that the works were completed to the guttering on 27 October 2022. She said that the guttering was not cleared until 16 May 2023. The evidence suggests that the roofing contractor did attend the property on 27 October 2022, but this was in relation to the repair to the pergola roof. This is a record keeping failure within the landlord’s handling of the repair.
Upon a review of the landlord’s internal repair records, it is noted that it frequently included numerous repairs for different trades on the same job card. In our opinion, this is likely to have been one of the contributing factors to why the landlord struggled to effectively monitor the resident’s repairs.
The evidence suggests that the required work was undertaken on 21 September 2023 and the resident told this Service that the issue was resolved.
While taking into consideration the landlord’s publicised 3-month delay due to COVID-19 pandemic for routine repairs of this nature (mentioned earlier in the report), the timescale to resolve the guttering was still excessive.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering. This is because:
1. The landlord took 27 months to satisfactorily resolve the issue.
2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for an update on several occasions.
3. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the repair was poor.
4. It is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation at both stages of the complaint was in relation to its handling of this specific issue. Therefore, as before, we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
An order of compensation has been calculated in line with our guidance on remedies. This is in recognition of the delays and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord.

Concerns about the boiler flue and pergola roof

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will keep in good repair and working order any installations it provides for supply of gas, including central heating.
The evidence indicates that the resident first reported an issue with the pergola and boiler flue in 2019. It is noted that within an internal email, the landlord claimed it could not see that it had taken any action following the resident’s original query raised in 2019. This is concerning, as improved communication around this matter may have had a bearing on the other events of this case. As we have seen no evidence of this, we are unable to comment further on the matter.
On 16 June 2021 and 22 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about the pergola and boiler flue. She said:
1. When she moved into the property, the pergola roof was made of corrugated plastic.
2. The landlord had informed her in 2019 that it would replace the roof, as it was damaged.
3. She removed the roof herself in the meantime, due to the delays. She wanted the landlord to install a new roof.
4. She had been informed by the gas contractor that that the boiler flue needed to be extended before a new roof could be installed. This was to ensure the flue was compliant with regulations.
5. She would like the landlord to visit the property to inspect the area.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. She contacted it again on 8 July 2021 to request an update. The landlord’s internal notes stated that “as long as it passed the gas safety check, there is nothing else [it] would do”. However, it advised her that it would arrange a visit to the property to inspect the area.
As the landlord inappropriately failed to arrange an appointment with the resident, she contacted it again on 13 July 2021 and 18 August 2021. She told it that she needed the roof installed as it would be beneficial for her daughter’s health conditions to be able to sit outside. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was unsatisfactory.
On 18 August 2021, the repairs contractor contacted the gas contractor to ask it to confirm what works it had recommended. It responded to advise that it had previously informed the landlord that the works were chargeable for a “flue re-run”, but the landlord had not confirmed if it wanted the works to go ahead. This was inappropriate and shows that the landlord’s communication with its contractors was poor.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update again on 16 September 2021 and 28 September 2021. There is evidence that the landlord discussed the matter internally but failed to update the resident or return her calls. This caused the resident to feel dismissed.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord stated in an internal email that it had reviewed the photographs of the pergola area and concluded that the resident’s request was not feasible. It said it would therefore not be submitting a chargeable request for the boiler flue extension. We find it inappropriate that the landlord did not inform the resident of its decision and the reason for it.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 29 March 2022, but we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her, which was inappropriate.
On 31 May 2022, the landed added a note to its internal systems that stated it would arrange an inspection. It said it had spoken to the resident who was “very frustrated” that she had received no update about the repair. We have received no evidence from the landlord that an inspection was undertaken, which is a record keeping failure in its handling of the case. It also has not demonstrated that it took a suitably empathetic and supportive approach in response to the resident’s obvious frustration.
Despite the lack of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord did visit the property, due to the email the resident sent it on 7 June 2022. She said that:
1. The pergola and roof were in situ before the gas boiler was installed and the location of the flue should have been considered at that point. She said if it was a safety issue now (without the roof), then it must have been a safety issue before she removed it.
2. Her daughter was disabled and required the covered outdoor space to meet her needs.
3. The issue had been raised years ago, and she was told that the flue could be extended or diverted. She therefore found it unacceptable that the landlord had refused to extend the boiler flue and fit a new roof.
4. She asked to speak to a manager to discuss the issues.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or arranged a call with a manager as per her request. This was unreasonable. We find that better communication would have improved the resident’s experience and demonstrated that the landlord was listening to her concerns, even if she disagreed with its decisions.
Following a gas service on 11 July 2022, which confirmed that the boiler was safe to use, it is then unclear what happened between this date and 25 October 2022 as we have received no evidence that accounts for the events during this period. This amounts to another record keeping failure within the landlord’s handling of the repair.
On 26 October 2022, the roofing contractor said that it had arranged an appointment for the following day to install the pergola roof, and that the gas contractor should be able to attend afterwards for the boiler flue. The landlord failed to provide us with evidence of the repair records on 27 October 2022.
Between 31 October 2022 and 9 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions. She said that the pergola roof had been installed on 27 October 2022, but no alterations to the boiler flue had been undertaken. She was “extremely concerned” that she was in an unsafe situation and that the flue position did not meet gas regulations. During this period, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident on only one occasion (1 November 2022). It told her that its gas contractor would contact her directly as it was aware of the situation. We accept that the gas contractor was best placed to provide expert advice on the matter. However, the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure the homes of its residents are safe and gas compliant. We find that it would have been appropriate for it to monitor the situation closely, reassure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously, and keep her updated until the matter was resolved.
On 14 December 2022, a gas safety check was undertaken, and the boiler was confirmed safe to use. The notes on the report stated that the gas contractor had taken photographs of the boiler flue to pass on to colleagues. Whilst not obligated to do so, given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform her in writing that the boiler flue was safe.
On 6 April 2023, 14 April 2023, and 19 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that:
1. The gas contractor had turned up unannounced at her property. She said that this was happening regularly, and it was inappropriate as she had repeatedly told the landlord that unannounced visits caused her disabled daughter significant distress.
2. The appointments were supposed to be joint visits with the landlord, which had itself failed to attend. She said that she found it “absolutely shocking” that she was being asked to coordinate contractors to carry out work to the property.
3. The landlord and its contractors had done nothing to resolve the issue with the boiler flue since October 2022.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s emails. This was unacceptable and caused her to feel ignored. Additionally, the landlord’s repair policy states that it recognises some repair issues can have an adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition. We therefore find that it was unreasonable that the landlord did not tailor its service to the needs of the resident and her daughter, and that it visited her property unannounced on numerous occasions.
On 10 May 2023, the repairs contractor’s records stated that a fault was identified and that the roof of the pergola had to be removed “to comply with regulations”. Additionally, within its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that the boiler flue had been covered in a manner that breached regulations. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to assess the reliability of the gas safety certificate. However, it is concerning that the gas safety certificate on 14 December 2022 confirmed the boiler was safe to use, when the landlord later stated the boiler flue breached gas regulations.
It is our opinion that the landlord should have apologised to the resident in its complaint responses for the numerous failures identified in its handling of the repair. This is reflected in our spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, which highlights the effects of landlords taking a dismissive approach and displaying a lack of empathy towards residents.
The records show that the work was completed on 16 May 2023, over 25 months (not taking into account her first reports in 2019 as the date is not known) after the resident reported issues with the flue and roof. We find that these delays were unreasonable and excessive. During the period the issues remained unresolved, the resident was understandably concerned about her safety and the impact on her disabled daughter.
Overall, we find there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the boiler flue and pergola roof. This is because:
1. The landlord did not fully resolve the issue for 4 years.
2. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the repair.
3. The landlord confirmed that due to the actions of its repair’s contractors, the boiler flue breached gas regulations. This was left in situ for over 6 months, despite the resident raising her concerns on several occasions with the landlord.
4. The landlord failed to offer an appropriate apology to the resident.
5. It is not clear if the compensation the landlord offered the resident at both stages of its complaints process was in relation to its handling of this specific repair. Therefore, as with the other issues discussed above, we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
An order of compensation has been calculated in line with our guidance on remedies, based on circumstances in which the landlord’s failure has had a significant impact on the resident. The amount ordered is in recognition of the severity of the failure, the time taken to resolve the issues, and the substantial distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Request for compensation following a house fire

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation for claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy, which the resident is responsible for obtaining (but has no legal obligation to obtain). This includes damage to belongings through leaks, flood, or fire.
For context, the resident experienced a fire in the loft of the property in September 2016, and the fire service had to attend to make it safe. We understand that this was a distressing time for the resident.
The evidence suggests that the landlord conducted an investigation into the cause of the fire. One hypothesis was that it may have been caused by the repair contractor, which had visited the property for a repair the same day. It was suggested that the operative had moved some of the resident’s possessions on top of some lights in the loft space and these items then caught fire.
In an internal email on 7 October 2016, the landlord mentioned that it had considered arranging some compensation for the resident. This was in recognition of the items that were damaged, and the distress caused. However, the evidence suggests that the repair contractor denied liability for the fire. It is not clear from the evidence what decision was subsequently made around offering the resident compensation.
We understand that the resident made a formal complaint about the matter between late 2016 and early 2017. We have also seen correspondence that shows she requested compensation from the landlord on 21 March 2017. She told this Service that she was then promised compensation by the landlord. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no documentary evidence of this, so we are unable to reach a conclusive finding on this matter.
We have not had sight of any correspondence about the request for compensation between April 2017 and October 2022. We are therefore unable to make an assessment of the landlord’s handling of the matter during this period. The next mention of the compensation request was on 25 November 2022, when the resident informed the landlord that she wanted to make a (further) complaint about the issue.
The resident told this Service in September 2023 that she had contents insurance at the time of the fire. However, as it was caused by lights that did not have a protected cover to prevent them from getting hot, she was advised by her insurers that the claim would have to be made against buildings insurance. In mitigation, we have not seen that the resident informed the landlord of this fact at the time of the fire and original complaint.
An assessment of the appropriateness of the landlord’s stage 1 response in relation to this matter will be made within the complaint handling section of this report. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised to the resident for the misinformation in the stage 1 and provided her with the contact details for its insurers. The resident informed this Service on 28 September 2023 that the insurance company advised her that the claim would need to be raised by the landlord rather than her, as the tenant. Although we have seen no evidence that the resident informed the landlord of this, it is our opinion that the landlord should have been aware of the process of claiming on its own insurance before it provided the resident with the details. However, this alone does not warrant an adverse finding.
We therefore find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a house fire. We have however made a recommendation to address the current situation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. The landlord states in its complaints policy that if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension with the complainant.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It also stipulates that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for their communication to be treated as such, and whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make complaint. We have found that on several occasions within the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues, it failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction and treat the matter as a complaint. Examples of this include the resident’s telephone calls and emails (referenced in the pergola and boiler flue section of this report) on 31 May 2022 and 7 June 2022. This was inappropriate.
The resident requested to make a complaint on 18 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 working days later, on 24 November 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. The resident replied to the landlord on 24 and 25 November 2022 and asked it to include further issues within the complaint investigation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this request. This was at odds with the Code applicable at the time of the complaint, which stated that if a resident raised additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response. If the landlord felt it would have unreasonably delayed the response, it should have informed the resident that it would log it as a new complaint.
Almost 4 months later, on 15 March 2023, the resident asked this Service to assist in progressing her complaint as she had not received a stage 1 response from the landlord. We contacted the landlord on 23 March 2023 and instructed it to provide a stage 1 response by 17 April 2023. As the landlord did not respond to the complaint it acknowledged in November 2022, and the resident required intervention from the Ombudsman to progress her complaint, we find that the landlord acted inappropriately.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 March 2023 to apologise for its complaint handling delays, which was appropriate. A telephone call was then arranged for 31 March 2023 to discuss her concerns, but the evidence shows that the landlord failed to contact her. 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 her, understand the impact of the situation on her, and ascertain the outcome sought.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2023 to express her dissatisfaction that the call did not go ahead. The landlord apologised to the resident on 4 April 2023 and attempted to call her, which was reasonable. The resident responded the same day and asked the landlord to provide a direct telephone number so she could return the call. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which caused further inconvenience in what was already a protracted complaints process for her. It is good practice for complaint handlers to provide direct contact details or otherwise make themselves accessible to complainants in the event of any questions or concerns.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 April 2023 to advise her that it needed to extend the complaint response date by 10 days. We appreciate that the landlord was awaiting information from its repair contractors before it could issue its response. However, given the complaint delays the resident had already experienced, we find that a further extension should have been avoided if possible.
Following further intervention from this Service, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023. This meant it took a total of 27 weeks to provide its response. This was unreasonable, and excessively surpassed the maximum timescales outlined in the Code as well as its own policy.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the Code stated that within their written response, landlords must confirm their decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. Within the resident’s initial request to make a formal complaint on 18 November 2022, she told the landlord that she wanted to complain about the outstanding repairs to her garage door, runner, and roof. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that it would arrange an inspection to review the repair issues with the garage. However, it is our opinion that the landlord’s response was unreasonable, as it did not provide any explanation of the outcome of the investigation and failed to acknowledge if, or where, things had gone wrong within its service delivery. As it failed to assess its own handling of the repairs, the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In line with the Scheme, this means we have been unable to make a determination on the matter.
The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so. On 24 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to also include the ongoing issue with a leaking shower, and her request to install a water butt within her complaint. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of these specific concerns, as it did not reference them within its stage 1 or stage 2 response. This was a failing within its complaint handling. We acknowledge that these issues were not included on the list of complaints we sent to the landlord on 23 March 2023. However, the landlord should have identified that there were some differences, and it would have been appropriate for it to contact her to confirm the complaint definition with her.
We also find that the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s request for compensation following the house fire was indicative of poor complaint handling. Had it conducted a thorough investigation, it would have identified that there had in fact been a house fire in 2016. This may have prevented the resident expending further time and trouble in escalating this aspect of her complaint.
Additionally, within the landlord’s stage 1 response to its handling of the guttering repairs, it omitted to mention the repairs that the resident had reported in June 2021 and September 2021. Furthermore, within its response to the resident’s complaint about the garden fence, the landlord failed to reference the repairs reported on 20 April 2021. This shows that it had failed to undertake a comprehensive investigation into her concerns, and/or that the records it examined were inadequate.
It is noted that the landlord’s £65 offer of compensation for complaint handling was in line with its compensation framework. However, it is our opinion that as the complaint delays were excessive and the landlord repeatedly failed to keep the resident updated, amounting to multiple failures, its offer at stage 1 was inadequate.
An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had raised an inspection for the outstanding repairs. We find that its lack of action and ownership to undertake the repairs promised was inappropriate. It is our opinion that the landlord should have monitored the agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident using an agreed method.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023. This was a total response time of 14 weeks, which was an excessive delay, and again required the Ombudsman’s intervention.
It is also noted that the landlord provided this Service with a copy of its stage 2 response but failed to provide the resident with a copy. The resident informed the landlord of its oversight on 7 October 2023, and we have seen no evidence that it apologised to her. This was inappropriate and showed lack of customer focus.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its complaint handling or its handling of the substantive issues, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord also referenced repairs (rewiring of the loft and outstanding repairs to the bathroom) that were not mentioned within the stage 1 complaint. If the resident wished to complain about these matters, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate them further. However, there is no indication that it did so or explored whether she wished to pursue these.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies stipulates that when assessing the impact an issue has caused, landlords should take into account any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the resident. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances and that there were multiple additional failings within its complaint handling, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of £50 at stage 2 was inadequate.
As mentioned earlier in the report, while not obliged to do so, it is good practice for landlords to explain to its residents how much they have awarded for each investigated complaint definition. The landlord’s lack of transparency in this case caused the resident to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It also made it impracticable for this Service to assess the appropriateness of the offer. Furthermore, the landlord’s inattentiveness in offering 2 different amounts of compensation within its stage 2 response was also inappropriate. Nevertheless, given the failures identified throughout the report, we find that the total amount of compensation the landlord offered was significantly lower than what was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make compensation payments within 20 working days of the date the resident accepts the offer. The resident requested the landlord to pay her the compensation on 3 occasions (7 October 2023, 4 December 2023, and 29 April 2024). Given the delays the resident had already experienced with the substantive issues and the complaint, we find that it is unacceptable that the landlord has still not paid her the compensation it offered.
Overall, we find that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because:
1. Throughout the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues, it failed to treat the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint on several occasions.
2. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were not issued within the timescales stipulated in its complaints policy or the Code.
3. The landlord failed to provide clear and consistent communication to the resident throughout the complaint process.
4. The complaint responses did not answer all elements of the resident’s complaint.
5. The complaint process failed to effectively monitor and ensure completion of the actions and repairs the landlord promised the resident at stage 1.
6. The landlord failed to provide clarity on its offer of compensation and the offer was not proportionate to the failures it ought reasonably to have been aware of during the complaints process.
7. There is no evidence that the landlord paid the resident the compensation, despite her confirming she would like to accept on numerous occasions.
Compensation has been ordered to reflect the landlord’s failures identified within this report and has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord was previously subject to a special investigation by the Ombudsman, and we published our findings in May 2024. The landlord has undertaken various measures to improve its performance subsequently and has done so in cooperation with the Ombudsman. Therefore, we have not made any wider orders in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. We have however we have made an order to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the hallway.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the decking in the garden.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering.
5. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the boiler flue and pergola roof.
6. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a house fire.
7. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be from a staff member of director level or above.
2. Pay the resident £2,500 compensation. As mentioned previously, this replaces the offer of compensation made by the landlord previously. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £500 for its handling of her reports of cracks in the hallway.
  2. £100 for its handling of her concerns about the decking in the garden.
  3. £500 for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence, wall, and gate.
  4. £250 for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering.
  5. £850 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the boiler flue and pergola roof.
  6. £300 for its handling of the associated complaint. This includes £115 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2, plus an additional amount in recognition of the failures identified within this report.
3. Contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about:
  1. Its response to her reports of repairs to the garage door, roof and runner.
  2. Its response to her reports of a leaking shower.
  3. Its handling of her request to install a water butt.
4. Arrange an independent survey of the property, at a time agreed with the resident, to identify any outstanding or new issues:
  1. With the cracks in the hallway.
  2. With the garden gate and brick wall.
It should share a copy of the resulting report with the resident and provide her with a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted in the report. It should also provide her with a single point of contact who will provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her. It should ensure that all the recommended repairs are resolved within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm if she would like it to contact its insurers in relation to her damaged possessions, following the fire.