Southwark Council (202319618)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319618

Southwark Council

24 January 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the property’s loft.
2. Handling of repairs to the property’s windows.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority and freeholder of the property. The property is a Grade 2 listed 3-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is aware of health vulnerabilities within the household. Its records do not specify the exact health conditions, nor any considerations required when engaging with the household members. The resident says his wife has severe mental health vulnerabilities including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and that he is awaiting stomach surgery.
On 9 September 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction with its out of hours (OOH) response to his reports of a water leak from the property’s loft. He made multiple calls and experienced confusion regarding which trade operatives the landlord would send and when. He described how water had affected the ceiling and electrics in his daughter’s bedroom and staff told him to “call back in the morning.” He did not feel that the landlord’s staff took his concerns seriously. He said he experienced anxiety with its response as it had only recently finished major works following a roof leak in 2020.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 26 September 2022. It apologised for how it had initially responded to the resident’s concerns. It said it had raised an emergency repair to inspect the roof and assured him that it had spoken with staff and taken learning from his feedback.
On 5 October 2022 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). He was not satisfied with its response as this was the second roof leak in 2 years.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord issued a second stage 1 response under a different complaint reference number, based on its customer service handling of the reported leak. It apologised for miscommunication during his initial report. It acknowledged it had recently completed major works but was unable to determine any links until its contractor used scaffolding to complete an inspection.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 24 October 2022 and provided a stage 2 final response on 25 October 2022. It said sorry that it had not given him the correct support following his initial report and apologised for the poor customer service he had received. The landlord provided an insurance claim form for him to claim for damaged personal belongings. Its letter informed the resident to approach a designated person or wait 8 weeks before approaching the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident says the landlord advised him to raise his complaint with its independent arbitration tribunal service.
On 20 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the property’s windows. He considered the landlord should replace the wooden sash windows for new uPVC. He described difficulties opening the windows, draughts, and high levels of condensation. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 31 March 2023 advised it was satisfied with its inspection on 19 January 2023. In which, it determined that it could repair rather than replace the windows. The resident added this complaint to the arbitration panel.
On 18 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint about damp and mould in the property. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023. It was satisfied with its response to the resident’s concerns and did not uphold his complaint. The landlord paid £380 by way of an insurance claim on 6 February 2023. Its records say it paid a further £196 on 3 May 2023 for 96 days using a dehumidifier.
On 26 July 2023 the arbitration tribunal panel met to discuss the resident’s complaints. Matters included the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his roof leaks, additional cost of using a dehumidifier, and outstanding window repairs. Following further meetings, its final decision meeting on 3 June 2024 said:
1. that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint had been ongoing for 1 year and 9 months
2. the landlord had offered compensation of £2,250
3. it recognised the landlord had made a partial payment and considered the resident due £1,810
4. it also instructed the landlord to pay an additional £418 for dehumidifier running costs and £100 for 2 missed appointments
5. the landlord should provide the resident with an up to date electrical performance certificate due to the work required following the leaks
6. it did not consider the leak to the property’s front step and asphalt part of the resident’s original complaint, but the landlord should provide damp and mould treatment and/or a dehumidifier to the ground floor cupboard in the meantime
7. it was satisfied that the landlord had resolved the resident’s original repair issues and closed the case
Following our intervention on 23 June 2024, the landlord issued the resident with a stage 2 final response to assess its handling of the resident’s complaints. On 10 July 2024 the landlord awarded a further £150 compensation for identified complaint handling failures not included in the arbitration panel’s decision.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He considered the landlord’s failures had had a “devastating effect on his family’s health.” He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace the property’s windows, considered the insurance payment too low, and said repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said that the landlord’s handling of his complaints affected his and his family’s physical and mental health. He also considered the landlord’s insurance payment too low to cover the full cost of water damaged items.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must assess liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on the health of any household member. Or, if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s insurance payment.
We acknowledge that on 25 November 2023 the landlord identified cracks in asphalt steps and a walkway at the property. This led to a leak in the resident’s cupboard. While we recognise the distress this would cause, this matter did not form part of his original roof leak complaint. Therefore, it does not form part of this investigation. We encourage the resident to report this matter to the landlord if the repair remains outstanding.
We also note that the resident raised a separate complaint on 17 May 2024. In which, he expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitration tribunal process and staff conduct. The resident did not raise these matters as part of his original complaint. Therefore, we will not consider them as part of this investigation.
During a conversation with the resident in January 2025, he told us he had previously made a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord. He considered it had failed to provide him with the information requested. We are unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data and its response to the resident’s SAR. Therefore, this matter will not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the property’s loft

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutter, drains, and pipes. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its repairs guide.
The resident’s conditions of tenancy says he must allow access to the property to allow the landlord or its contractors to carry out work including inspections, safety checks, treatments, repairs, and major works.
The landlord’s relevant compensation policy provides guidance on offering compensation in circumstances of repair delays, distress, and time and trouble. It considers awards between £250 to £1,000 for delays and distress based on low, medium, or high impact. It considers awards of £50 to £250 for a resident’s time and trouble.
The landlord’s repairs guide says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The repairs guide is silent on timeframes for major works.
At the time of the resident’s complaint in September 2022, the evidence shows the landlord made safe the property’s electrics as an emergency repair. This was appropriate and in line with its repair timescale expectations. That said, while it did apologise, it was unreasonable that it took the resident’s time and trouble through multiple calls to the OOH service to ensure the landlord raised the appropriate leak repair. The landlord’s comment for the resident to “call back in the morning” did not recognise the seriousness of his repair and demonstrates a training need at the time of his service request.
The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the roof repair after approximately 13 weeks, on 6 December 2022. It finalised redecoration work on 6 March 2023, approximately 25 weeks after the resident’s leak report. While the landlord’s repairs guide does not state timescales for such repairs, it accepted that it was reasonable to have expected it to achieve this work within 8 weeks.
However, the resident disputes that the landlord identified the root cause of the leak and failed to provide a lasting repair. The landlord’s records show the resident experienced roof leaks in August 2020, September 2022, March 2023, and December 2023. With the December 2023 leak affecting the property’s electrics again.
There is evidence the landlord’s roofing contractor identified other work following the resident’s reports of more leaks. Having fixed slipped tiles in November 2022, it recommended work to the property’s downpipe and water hopper on 4 April 2023. It completed a dye test in June 2023 to trace faults and on 25 November 2023 it identified cracks in asphalt steps and a walkway. On 8 January 2024 it installed scaffolding to identify damaged felt on the property’s roof. On each occasion the landlord demonstrated taking steps to respond to the resident’s reports and acted on its specialist contractor’s recommendations. The resident disputes the effectiveness of the landlord’s repairs to remedy these leaks.
While we are not expert in construction, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff and contractors. The evidence indicates that the leaks were individual issues and not caused by the landlord’s failure to fix one particular repair. The resident disputes this assessment and considers the property’s ‘London roof’ and central roof gutter responsible. He considers the landlord failed to correctly identify the root causes.
Though we recognise the distress these matters would cause, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to each of the resident’s reports and acted based on expert opinion. The leak locations affected different areas of the property and the landlord responded when informed.
That said, given the landlord had completed surveys and major works to the roof between 2020 to 2022, it remains unclear why it had been unable to identify all faults which affected the resident for more than another year. It is therefore reasonable that the resident described experiencing further distress and inconvenience as the property required additional works to resolve the repair and subsequent decoration, damp, and electrical testing.
Based on the effects of the leaks, the arbitration tribunal’s final decision of 3 June 2024 instructed the landlord to provide the resident with a new electrical test certificate. The resident says the landlord has not provided this. We note an inspection prior to the arbitration panels decision on 31 May 2024 recorded the electrical condition as unsatisfactory and recommended follow on work. It is therefore reasonable to expect it to complete this work.
However, there is evidence of miscommunication regarding this matter by the arbitration panel which caused confusion about the required work. There is further evidence within the landlord’s internal communication on 16, 29, 30 July 2024, 2 August 2024, 9 September 2024, and 1 October 2024 where it discussed difficulties arranging appointments due to the resident “refusing to provide access.” It discussed the possible need to remind the resident of his tenancy conditions and requirement to provide it with access.
While the reason appears to be the resident’s dissatisfaction with the arbitration outcome, it is evident that the landlord and resident relationship had broken down at this stage. However, the resident must allow access for repairs as part of his tenancy conditions. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to rearrange this work and provide him a copy of test certification if it has not done so already.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
On 1 November 2023 the arbitration panel acknowledged that the landlord had offered £2,250 compensation for the delay, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord proposed its maximum compensation award to recognise the high degree of impact on the resident. This demonstrated the landlord considered the detriment to the resident and its efforts to put things right. At the final tribunal hearing in June 2024 the panel instructed the landlord to pay the remaining compensation balance of £1,810, a further £100 for missed appointments, and considered the resident’s case closed.
When there has been a series of significant failures which have had a serious detrimental affect on a resident, our remedies guidance suggests redress starting at £1,000. In this case we may have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to offer proportionate redress while completing the identified repairs.
It is therefore our finding that the landlord’s offer provided the resident with reasonable redress.
Beyond the arbitration panels final decision in June 2024 and landlord’s stage 2 final response in July 2024, the resident reported experiencing another leak in November 2024. While we encourage the resident to raise this as a new complaint, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to carry out a further property inspection due to the recurring issues experienced by the household.

Handling of repairs to the property’s windows

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including windows. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its repairs guide.
Under the Decent Homes Standard, a property is considered in a reasonable state of repair if certain criterions are met. However, if key components of a dwelling, such as windows are old and, because of their poor condition need replacing or a major repair, it would fail to meet these criteria.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident reported concerns with the property’s sash windows and vents in 2018. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s records show that it inspected the windows on 14 November 2018. In which, the landlord’s glazing contractor considered the windows worked well, were repairable, and fed this back to the landlord. We note the landlord’s contractor experienced access difficulties to complete work at this stage due to the resident’s desire for replacement windows rather than repairs.
There is further evidence that the landlord completed repairs to the windows during January 2019 and February 2023. Its records indicate achieving the repairs within its repair timescale of 20 working days for a non-urgent repair. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns.
On 20 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding the property’s windows. The evidence indicates that he considered the landlord should replace the wooden sash windows for uPVC.
Upon receipt of the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to inspect the property’s windows again on 5 April 2023. We note that the landlord cancelled repair orders in May 2023. This was due to access difficulties, as the resident disputed its decision to repair rather than replace the windows.
There is evidence the landlord arranged a joint inspection of the windows alongside its contractor on 29 June 2023. In which, the contractor confirmed that the windows did not need replacing. The resident remained dissatisfied with this decision and said another property had received new uPVC replacements. This additional inspection and second opinion demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to assess the resident’s concerns and offer reassurance that it could repair the identified issues.
While we acknowledge the resident’s desire for replacement windows, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its qualified staff and contractors. It demonstrated inspecting the windows when the resident raised concerns and explained the planning restrictions placed on it due to the property’s Grade 2 listed status. While one neighbouring property may have benefited from uPVC replacements, we are unable to assess the circumstances of that decision. However, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the windows meet the definition of the decent homes standard and that they offer thermal comfort. We therefore encourage the resident to report any further issues for the landlord to reassess.
From our findings, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect and identify repairs to improve the reported issues. This was appropriate and demonstrated it meeting its LTA 1985 obligations. Evidence indicates that it experienced delays completing the work due to the resident not initially allowing access while disputing the landlord’s decision.
We also note that the resident took his dissatisfaction regarding the windows to the arbitration tribunal on 23 July 2023. In which, the panel advised the landlord to repair the windows as soon as reasonably practicable. The panel did not find fault with the landlord’s decision making nor instruct it to apply to the planning department to replace the windows. This decision remained the same in the arbitration panel’s final report on 3 June 2024.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s windows. We have however made a recommendation for the landlord to arrange to inspect the property’s windows to assess the resident’s reports of recurring repair issues.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it will inspect reports of damp and mould within 20 working days to assess the most appropriate course of action.
The landlord does not dispute that a roof leak at the property in September 2022 likely caused a bedroom at the property to experience damp and mould. Following his reports it raised an inspection order on 30 November 2022 and completed an inspection on 17 December 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its 20 working day timescale as set out in its repairs guide.
As well as this, there is evidence the landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier on 25 November 2022. Furthermore, it reimbursed him £196 for the operating costs of the unit for 96 days between 25 November 2022 to 1 March 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s actions to ensure it supported the resident with out of pocket expenses while it carried out roof repairs.
The landlord’s records show that it completed a mould wash, repaired damaged plaster work in the bedroom, and redecorated. The evidence shows it completed these works by 7 March 2023.
There is further evidence that the landlord provided the resident with its insurance details and paid him £380 on 6 February 2023 for damage caused to his possessions. This demonstrated the landlord accepting responsibility and taking steps to put things right. We note the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer and remind him that any dissatisfaction regarding this insurance claim falls outside of our jurisdiction.
The resident experienced further water penetration from the roof on or around 29 March 2023. The landlord states it completed the repair work on 15 May 2023. It was therefore reasonable that it provided a dehumidifier between 2 June 2023 to 18 October 2023 to minimise the effects of damp and to prepare the damaged plaster for further redecoration.
The landlord has provided evidence, including photographs, of its works to repair defective plaster and mould wash to the property’s bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom. Its records state that it completed this work on 25 September 2023 and provided evidence of the resident’s wife signing to confirm all work completed.
We note the landlord completed a visit to the property on 17 November 2023. In which, it did not identify any mould to wash. Although, the arbitration panel instructed the landlord to pay an additional £418 to cover the out of pocket expenses of the resident having to run a dehumidifier unit. The landlord says it paid this on or around 18 December 2023.
The repeat incidents of water penetration would understandably have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have considered this under a separate complaint heading. In terms of the landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould, it has demonstrated that it acted in line with its repair guide and inspected the property when the resident informed it of problems. It took action to dry the property’s walls, reimbursed the resident for using a dehumidifier, paid an insurance claim, and took steps to remedy the root cause at the time.
We note beyond the arbitration tribunal decision on 3 June 2024 the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repairs. He said he had lived with damp and mould for 3 years and had pneumonia 3 times.
On the 17 July 2024 the landlord’s legal team emailed the resident. It said that it:
1. had adhered to the arbitration recommendations
2. was willing to meet or call the resident to discuss his repair concerns
3. considered the property fit for human habitation and it could manage any additional repairs on a day to day basis
4. could arrange for its technical services team to contact him if he were suggesting the property had deteriorated over such a short time
5. could arrange a medical assessment regarding his concerns that the property was affecting his health and a suitably qualified professional could evaluate the assessment
This communication took place after the final arbitration decision and the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, it demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to address the resident’s concerns and offer steps to address them. There is no evidence the resident agreed to these proposals.
In this case, the landlord does not dispute that the property experienced water penetration. It acknowledged the effects on the resident while carrying out repairs to the substantive leak issue. It covered out of pocket expenses, took action to minimise the effects of damp, redecorated, and put the resident back to the position before the roof leaks. Therefore, based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its ICP within 3 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s relevant policy met the expectations of the Code.
The evidence indicates that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 roof leak and window repair complaints within the timescales set out in its relevant complaints policy. However, it does not dispute that it failed to achieve the same level of service at stage 2.
There is evidence the resident asked to escalate the roof leak complaint on 5 October 2022. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge this request until 24 October 2022, 10 working days beyond its complaint policy timescales.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response about the roof leak on 25 November 2022. In which, it incorrectly advised the resident to contact a designated person or wait 8 weeks before referring his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. This was no longer applicable following changes to the Scheme, which took effect on 1 October 2022. This demonstrated the landlord’s failure to update its complaint handling process and indicates a training need at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The resident says that he asked the landlord to escalate each of his outstanding complaints after its stage 2 response of 25 November 2022. However, he says he had difficulties and considered the landlord’s incorrect information regarding the Ombudsman’s process to blame. He says based on the landlord’s guidance; he proceeded with its arbitration process rather than the Ombudsman to avoid any further delays. The landlord disputes the resident’s position and says it arrange the arbitration tribunal at his request.
Paragraph 5.10 of the Code (1 April 2022) states that on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, it must ask the resident for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
It is unclear to us why the landlord considered it unable to respond to the resident’s stage 2 escalation requests outside of its arbitration tribunal process. It is also unclear how the arbitration panel interacts with the landlord’s ICP to ensure compliance with the Code. While the evidence shows the resident committed to this process, it is reasonable that the landlord’s failure to update its letters to reflect the Scheme’s changes influenced his decision.
To achieve completion of its ICP, on 28 March 2024 we asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 response or reason why it did not accept the resident’s escalation requests. Our letter reminded the landlord of its complaint handling obligations. While the landlord informed us of the ongoing independent arbitration process, it stayed unclear to us why this restricted the resident’s access to its formal complaint handling process.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord partially upheld the resident’s dissatisfaction with its complaint handling. Its response included that it:
1. regretted the lack of evidence of an appropriate apology or timely response to the resident’s roof repair complaint
2. apologised for the poor customer service received when initially reporting the roof leak
3. apologised for the lack of acknowledgement or an apology for it failing to meet its response timescales for his window repair complaint
4. apologised for its roofing contractor’s failure to provide an update as promised after speaking to him on 17 April 2023
5. apologised for the gaps in communication regarding its decision to repair his windows rather than replace them
6. offered a total of £150 for its communication and customer service failures across his roof, customer service, and window repair complaints
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. Given the identified failures, its delay to provide a final response, and conflicting complaint handling processes, we would have found maladministration but for the landlord’s steps to put things right. Having investigated each of the resident’s complaints, summarised failings, and identified learning, we find the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation payment in line with the remedies guidance available to us.
It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Further consideration

On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence a landlord is not meeting the requirements set out in the Code.
In this investigation, there is uncertainty how the landlord’s complaint handling policy aligns to the Code when it is considering matters through its independent arbitration panel. While it took steps to recognise its complaint handling failures and offer redress, this took an unreasonable amount of time to resolve. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code to assess the interaction of these processes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the property’s loft.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the compensation balance of £1,810 and its offer of £100 for 2 missed appointments, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident £418 and £196 for the dehumidifier running costs, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to rearrange an appointment date for it to complete the recommendations of the May 2024 electrical test inspection and provide the resident with a copy of the test certificate if it has not done so already.
We recommend that the landlord arranges a suitably qualified professional to inspect the property’s windows to assess the resident’s reports of recurring repair issues.
If it has not already do so following the resident’s reports in November 2024, we recommend the landlord arranges a suitably qualified professional completes another inspection of the resident’s property to determine the root cause of his reported leak and damp.
We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the circumstances of the resident’s household.