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

Southern Housing (202329127)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329127

Southern Housing

23 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks and outstanding repairs.
    2. Reports of pest infestation in the property.
    3. Reports of a burst kitchen pipe.
    4. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities including respiratory conditions.
  2. On 20 June 2023 the resident reported leaks from a burst kitchen pipe. Between October 2023 and January 2024, the landlord confirmed a separate leak from the flat above. On 23 January 2024 the resident’s sister reported ceiling damage, damp, and mould. The resident reported the kitchen pipe leak again on 5 February 2024 and a pest infestation on 12 April 2024.
  3. On 18 May 2024 the resident made a formal complaint, stating that the landlord had failed to address the kitchen pipe leak, complete outstanding repairs, and resolve the pest infestation.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 19 July 2024. It stated that the resident had not identified which repairs remained outstanding, so it did not address that part of the complaint. It had found no evidence of pest infestation but had completed pest-proofing measures to prevent future access to the property. It acknowledged it had not repaired the resident’s kitchen pipe and raised a job to complete this repair. It apologised and offered £230 total compensation.
  5. Between 12 August and 6 November 2024 the resident attempted to escalate his complaint approximately 4 times. He raised concerns about damp and mould due to the burst kitchen pipe, recurring water leaks, repair issues with the windows, kitchen, bathroom, and broken tiles in the property.
  6. The landlord opened a new complaint in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues on 21 November 2024.
  7. On 22 November 2024 we made an escalation request on the resident’s behalf, asking the landlord to respond to his reports of a pest infestation, an ongoing leak, outstanding repairs, and further disrepair in the property.
  8. On 5 December 2024 the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that it had completed pest control works and raised a repair order for the kitchen pipe on 26 July 2024. It apologised for failing to resolve the leaks from the flat above. It outlined planned works to the resident’s property, including repairs to ceilings and walls, and the installation of insulation. It explained that access issues with the flat above had prevented it from starting these repairs. It offered total compensation of £1,170, including £150 for poor complaint handling and £900 for distress and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 9 January 2025. It said it had already responded to the resident’s damp and mould concerns under his previous complaint about leaks from the flat above, burst kitchen pipe, and pest infestation. It apologised for any confusion caused and offered £50 for the delays in its complaint response.
  10. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He escalated his complaint on 27 January 2025. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2025. It reiterated what it said previously about having already assessed the damp and mould issues in its previous stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and it closed the case. It offered increased compensation of £100 for the delays in responding to the complaint.
  11. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and he escalated his complaint to us. He wants the landlord to complete outstanding repairs and offer increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said the repair issues have had a detrimental impact on his health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Reports of leaks and outstanding repairs.

  1. The Landlord and the resident have both referred to a disrepair claim and associated repair works. However, based on the landlord’s records, it is unclear when this claim was raised, the outcome of this claim, or what specific repairs were completed in direct response to the disrepair claim. The documentation does not clearly distinguish between general repairs and those undertaken as part of the disrepair process. This investigation does not assess the disrepair claim itself or the adequacy of any legal settlement or works arising from it.
  2. Landlords are expected to maintain clear and accurate records of all repair actions, particularly where legal claims are involved. This is essential to enable effective investigation, ensure accountability, and avoid confusion about what repairs have or have not been completed. In this case, the lack of clarity in the landlord’s records contributed to delays and hindered resolution of the resident’s concerns.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its responsibility for maintaining the structure of the property, including ceilings and walls, and for addressing leaks. The policy requires the landlord to attend within 6 hours of receiving a report of ceiling damage to carry out make-safe works. It also states that repairs affecting vulnerable residents should be prioritized when relevant to their additional needs.
  4. On 30 October, 8 December 2023, and 5 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged an ongoing leak from the flat above and noted difficulties in accessing the property to resolve it. On 23 January 2024 the resident’s sister reported that the ceiling had collapsed due to the leak. She also stated that the resident was suffering from a respiratory infection, which she attributed to damp and mould caused by the leak. She requested urgent repairs and highlighted the resident’s vulnerability and health concerns. Despite this, the landlord did not inspect the ceiling or carry out make-safe works until 7 February 2024,15 days after the report.
  5. Given the reported ceiling collapse and associated health and safety risks, the landlord should have conducted a prompt inspection and completed any necessary make-safe works. While a full repair may not have been feasible within 6 hours, the landlord could have taken steps to assess and ensure the property’s safety within that timeframe. Additionally, the resident’s known vulnerability should have prompted prioritisation of the repair. The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its own policies was unreasonable and likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 7 February 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found severe damage to the resident’s lounge caused by the ceiling collapse. It made the area safe and discussed a possible decant, which the resident declined. In internal correspondence dated 9 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor confirmed the leak was still active and raised the following repair jobs:
    1. Lounge: Reboard the ceiling, replaster walls and ceiling, fully decorate, and install new skirting and light fitting.
    2. Kitchen: Treat mould, remove the defective ceiling, reboard, replaster, and install a new fan.
    3. Bedroom and Bathroom: Treat mould, fully decorate both rooms, and install a new bath, bath panel, taps, and fan.
  7. On 29 February 2024 the resident signed a satisfaction form confirming he was happy with the bathroom repairs. According to internal communication dated 12 March 2024 the landlord had completed all kitchen and bathroom works. However, it had not started repairs in the lounge, as it still lacked access to the flat above to resolve the ongoing leak. The landlord stated it would complete the lounge repairs once it secured access to the flat above.
  8. Although the landlord took prompt action to begin the required works, it failed to inform the resident about the timeline for completing the lounge repairs or explain the reasons for the delay. According to its repairs policy, the landlord should clearly explain delays and next steps when it cannot complete repairs in 1 visit. In this case, it did not do so, which was unreasonable and not in line with its policy.
  9. On 8 July 2024 the resident reported ongoing leaks in his lounge, the same area where repairs remained outstanding and asked the landlord to complete the works. This indicates the landlord had neither resolved the leak nor completed the repairs, more than 5 months after the landlord raised works to resolve this issue on 7 February 2024. This prolonged delay likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that it did not act on the resident’s request to complete outstanding repairs because the resident had not specified which repairs were pending. The landlord’s records referred to various repairs linked to a disrepair claim but did not clearly identify or describe the specific works involved. This lack of detail likely caused confusion about which repairs the resident was referring to. While clearer communication from the resident may have helped, the landlord should not have relied solely on resident engagement. It had a responsibility to review its own records to identify any outstanding repairs and take appropriate action.
  11. Paragraphs 5.8 and 6.6 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) require landlords to review all relevant information and monitor outstanding actions. In this case, the landlord failed to meet those obligations. It was unreasonable to rely solely on the resident’s lack of engagement to justify not identifying the outstanding repairs, particularly when the landlord’s own records did not indicate that the lounge works had been completed. The stage 1 complaint response presented an opportunity to update the resident on the status of the lounge repair and to acknowledge the ongoing distress by offering appropriate redress. The landlord did neither. This failure likely contributed to the resident’s frustration and prolonged the resolution of repair issues, undermining confidence in the landlord’s complaints process.
  12. In his escalation requests on 12 August, 26 September, and 3 October 2024, the resident reported ongoing leaks from the flat above and outstanding repairs. The landlord responded by sending its contractor to inspect the property on 7 October 2024. The contractor found no active leaks but reported that the property was in poor condition and recommended a welfare check. The landlord appropriately contacted the relevant authorities to arrange this. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property and make a safeguarding referral, it did not prioritise completing the outstanding lounge repairs.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 December 2024. As at this time the resident’s lounge repairs were still outstanding, more than 9 months from when the landlord raised the initial works.
  14. The landlord’s records show it did not gain access to the flat above until 5 December 2024, over a year after it first became aware of the leaks in October 2023. Repairs to the resident’s lounge remained incomplete more than 9 months after the landlord raised the initial work order. Despite this, the landlord provided minimal communication and failed to prioritise the repairs. Its repairs policy states that it will consider residents’ vulnerability and prioritise accordingly. In this case, the landlord failed to follow its policy by neither completing the repairs within the expected timeframe nor treating them as a priority.
  15. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  16. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 5 December 2024 the landlord acknowledged that a leak was originating from the boiler in the flat above and affecting the resident’s property. It confirmed that, while the leak was not currently active, it would likely resume once the boiler system was reactivated. The landlord explained that earlier attempts to resolve the issue had been hindered by access difficulties. It noted that a decant had been offered to the resident, but this was declined. The landlord apologised for the delay in identifying and addressing the leak and clarified that it could not proceed with the planned works to the resident’s lounge until the source of the leak was fully resolved. It outlined the steps taken to gain access and complete the necessary repairs and committed to keeping the resident informed of ongoing progress.
  17. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had endured inadequate living conditions for an extended period. It accepted that it had missed opportunities to proactively identify and resolve the issue. It apologised for its poor service and acknowledged that it had let the resident down. The landlord stated that it had learned lessons from the situation, including the need for thorough and proactive investigations to prevent future delays and inconvenience. It offered £1,020 in compensation, comprising £900 for inconvenience caused, £15 for failure to follow process, £15 for miscommunication, £15 for repeated visits to resolve issues, £15 for the resident having to chase the landlord, and £60 for failure to repair.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 response shows that it accepted responsibility for the delays in resolving the leak and completing the necessary repairs. It took some steps to put things right, including offering to decant the resident, providing compensation, explaining what went wrong, and outlining lessons learned.
  19. However, these actions do not change the fact that the resident had to live in poor conditions for an extended period despite the landlord being aware of his vulnerabilities. The landlord should have prioritised the repairs and communicated more effectively throughout the process. While delays can sometimes occur due to factors beyond the landlord’s control, such as access issues, it still had a duty to complete the repairs, keep the resident informed and manage his expectations. It is particularly concerning that, as of April 2025, the landlord continued to report access issues and had not completed the repairs. Furthermore, there is no record to show it has now completed the repairs. Given that it first acknowledged these issues in October 2023, the fact that the same problem remains unresolved more than 19 months later reflects a serious failure in service delivery.
  20. In conclusion, the landlord’s explanation, apology, and compensation do not amount to reasonable redress in this case. We have found maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks and outstanding repairs. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to take specific actions to resolve the issue and to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation.
  21. This amount reflects the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which states that awards should consider any vulnerabilities, as well as the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures that have had a significant detrimental effect on the resident.

Pest infestation

  1. The landlord’s home management procedure states that it will treat rats and mice only when they pose a clear health or safety risk. If reported, the pest contractor must assess the issue and, if necessary, carry out treatment and proofing work to prevent recurrence. If pests enter due to structural faults, the contractor must report this so repair can be arranged. The landlord may charge residents if the infestation results from neglect or misuse. Minor issues that do not pose a health risk are the resident’s responsibility.
  2. The resident first reported a pest issue on 12 April 2024 stating that the collapse of his ceiling had created entry points for rats and mice. On 22 April 2024 the landlord informed the resident that he was responsible for resolving the pest problem and that it would only attend to cover the holes once he had dealt with the infestation. While it was reasonable for the landlord to clarify the resident’s responsibilities early on, its own pest policy states that it must inspect and assess infestations caused by structural issues. Since the ceiling collapse was a structural fault, the landlord should have taken responsibility for assessing and addressing the problem. Furthermore, given its awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered this and acted accordingly to support him.
  3. After making his formal complaint about pest infestation in the property on 18 May 2024 the resident informed the landlord on 5 June 2024 that he had made various reports of pest infestation to which it had not responded. He said the infestation posed a risk to his health. The landlord’s home management policy states that it will treat pest infestation when it presents a health risk to the resident.
  4. On receiving this additional information, the landlord appropriately raised a repairs job on 7 June 2024 for its pest control contractors to attend and inspect the property. However, it would have been reasonable if it had taken this action earlier because at this time the resident had been reporting the pest infestation for around 1 month and 26 days. The landlord’s delay in inspecting the property to access the extent of the infestation was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord’s record shows the pest control contractors attended on 28 June 2024 within 15 working days from when it raised the job on 7 June 2024. This was more than 2 months from when the resident initially reported the issue on 12 April 2024.
  6. In its complaint responses the landlord stated that pest control was the resident’s responsibility and that it would only attend to block the entry points once the resident had resolved the infestation. It maintained this position across several contacts, even after the resident reported that the issue stemmed from a ceiling collapse. The landlord only arranged for pest control to attend on 7 June 2024 nearly 2 months after the initial report, framing this as a goodwill gesture rather than a policy obligation. When pest control attended on 28 June 2024, they found no evidence of an active infestation and sealed the entry point. The landlord concluded that it had acted appropriately and warned the resident that future pest control visits would be chargeable.
  7. However, this response does not align with the landlord’s own pest control policy, which states that it must inspect and assess pest issues caused by structural faults. The resident clearly reported that the infestation followed a ceiling collapse, a structural issue, yet the landlord failed to inspect or assess the problem at that time. It also did not consider the resident’s known vulnerabilities, which its repairs policy requires it to factor into repair prioritisation. By treating the pest control visit as a goodwill gesture rather than a necessary response to a potential health risk, the landlord failed to acknowledge its responsibilities. Additionally, the delay of over 2 months from the initial report to the pest control visit was unreasonable, especially given the resident’s repeated reports and the potential health implications.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord failed to follow its own pest control and repairs policies by not inspecting or addressing a pest issue that arose from a structural fault. It also did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, which should have prompted a more supportive and proactive response. Although the landlord eventually arranged pest control, this was done belatedly and only after the resident escalated the matter. The delay and lack of appropriate action caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  9. Therefore, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £200 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused him. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for when there have been failures which had a detrimental impact on the resident.

Burst kitchen pipe.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for completing repairs to the pipes in the resident’s property. It will complete emergency repairs, such as repairs to make safe leaking water pipes, within 6 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days of them being reported.
  2. The resident first reported kitchen pipe leaks on 20 June 2023. The landlord’s records show it appropriately attended within its emergency response time limit and raised further jobs to complete this repair. The landlord’s records show the resident reported further kitchen pipe leaks on 17 July 2023 and 5 February 2024. The resident said the kitchen pipe leak had been ongoing for a long time and the landlord had not fully resolved it.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 February 2024 as an emergency and stated it needed to replace a section of the kitchen pipe. It advised that the kitchen pipe would leak if the resident used the kitchen sink. The resident agreed to use a bucket to contain water until the landlord completed the repair. There is no record to show that the landlord raised a follow-on job to complete this repair. On 9 April 2024 the contractor attended again following an emergency repair request raised by the resident. It said it would replace the kitchen waste pipe and asked the resident not to use the kitchen sink.
  4. The resident expressed disappointment about the landlord’s lack of communication around the kitchen pipe replacement on 3 May 2024. By the date of his formal complaint on 18 May 2024 this repair had been outstanding for more than 10 months outside the landlord’s routine repairs policy response time of 20 working days. Furthermore, the landlord had not communicated to the resident to explain the delay or provide any updates regarding this as required in its repairs policy. The landlord’s actions were not reasonable and would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The landlord had failed to complete the kitchen pipe repairs by its stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2024. This was more than 12 months from when the resident made his first report. This was an unreasonably long time with no communication from the landlord regarding this. It was therefore appropriate for it to acknowledge, provide explanation and offer compensation for this failing.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord attempted to put things right by offering £205 which was broken down as £60 repair failure, £100 inconvenience time and trouble, £15 failure to process, £15 resident having to repeatedly chase, £15 repeat visits to resolve outstanding issue. It raised a new repair and shared its action plan to complete this repair by 16 August 2024. The landlord took appropriate steps to make things right for the resident at stage 1 of its process.
  7. The landlord’s records show it had to rearrange this repair 3 times due to no access. Its records show it attempted to contact the resident regarding access. The landlord attended on 18 September 2024 and again did not get access to the property. The resident reported the landlord completed repairs to the kitchen pipe on 27 September 2024.
  8. The landlord made reasonable attempts to fix the kitchen pipe leak after its stage 1 response and it offered compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident. The landlord’s actions constitute reasonable redress in relation to the kitchen pipe leaks.

Formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord failed to meet those time limits at both stages of its complaints process. It appropriately acknowledged these delays in its responses and recognised its failure to respond to the resident’s repeated escalation requests. The landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling. It offered £25 at stage 1 for delays in responding within the required timescales, and £150 at stage 2 for overall poor complaint handling. It was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
  2. Between 12 August 2024 and 6 November 2024 the resident submitted 4 separate escalation requests. On 12 August, he raised concerns about outstanding repairs. On 26 September, he reported issues with damp and mould throughout the property, including the bathroom, as well as broken tiles and problems with the windows. On 3 November, he again raised concerns about the windows, tiles, damp and mould, and additional damage to the bathroom. Finally, on 6 November 2024 he reported repair issues in the kitchen, including damp and mould affecting both the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. Paragraph 6.8 of the Code states that where residents raise additional complaints during an investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not yet been issued. If the stage 1 response has already been issued, or if the new issues are unrelated or would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord must log them as a new complaint.
  4. The landlord’s own complaints policy reflects this, stating that if a resident raises further concerns after a response has been issued or if including them would cause unreasonable delay, it will log the new issues as a separate complaint.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it acknowledged the complaint made on 6 November 2024 regarding damp and mould and sent an acknowledgement on 21 November 2024. However, it failed to acknowledge or log the other issues raised in the resident’s earlier escalation requests. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 28 February 2025 the landlord stated that it had already addressed the resident’s reports of damp and mould under previous complaints related to leaks from the flat above. It referred to its policy, which states that it will not reinvestigate matters already considered through its complaints process and concluded that the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure.
  7. However, the landlord’s earlier complaint responses did not reference the resident’s reports of damp and mould resulting from the burst kitchen pipe, which he said had spread throughout the property. Also, the landlord did not reference any damp and mould related repairs raised or completed after the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. The action plan only listed works to the lounge and did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. As a result, the landlord failed to consider or respond to these issues in its stage 2 response of 28 February 2025. Also, it provided inaccurate information about the scope of its previous investigation.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord again failed to respond within the required time limits at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the damp and mould complaint. It acknowledged this failing and offered £100 in compensation for the delays.
  9. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to follow its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Code, it did not properly log or investigate new issues raised by the resident and provided inaccurate information in its stage 2 complaint response about damp and mould. These failings likely caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional £75 in compensation, increasing the total to £350 across both complaints. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, failure to follow procedures, and the distress caused to the resident.
  10. In May 2024 the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns about its complaint handling, risk management, repair timescales, and knowledge and information management. The report made several recommendations and the landlord was given 3 months to publish and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it intends to meet the recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman will not make any further orders in relation to those areas. However, the landlord should ensure it considers the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations made in the special report

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Leaks and outstanding repairs.
    2. Pest infestation in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of a burst kitchen pipe.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures for the time taken to fully resolve the lounge repairs and not following its complaint policies. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
    2. The landlord must provide an update on when it anticipates gaining access to the flat above to resolve the leaks. Additionally, it should provide defined timescales for when it will complete this repair.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm if he still wants to pursue the complaints regarding damp, mould, window, kitchen, bathroom, and broken tiles repairs. If he does, the landlord should respond in line with its complaint’s procedures.
    4. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,770 in compensation broken down as:
      1. The £1020 previously offered in its stage 2 response of 5 December 2024 if not already paid.
      2. An additional £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the residents reports of leaks and outstanding repairs.
      3. £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the residents reports of pest infestation.
      4. The £275 previously offered across both its complaints for complaint handling failures if this has not already been paid.
      5. Additional £75 for the likely time and trouble caused by the failures in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £205 compensation previously offered in its stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2024 if it has not already done so.
    2. The finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of a burst kitchen pipe is dependent on the payment of this sum.