Wandle Housing Association Limited (202227340)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227340

Wandle Housing Association Limited

31 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:
1. the impact of the landlord’s handling of issues on the resident’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of reports of roof, guttering and brickwork repairs and of the related internal repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat, with access to the rear via her neighbour’s flat. The landlord has recorded no vulnerabilities for the resident. However, in her correspondence to it she said she suffers from depression and anxiety.
At the end of October 2021, the resident reported an issue with her roof and guttering. In early December 2021 the landlord raised guttering work, noting she had reported they were blocked. In January 2022 the resident told the landlord that an operative had attended to complete work to resolve holes in her roof. She said guttering at the property still needed to be cleaned and checked and that issues with it were causing dampness in her bedroom.
In May 2022 the resident reported issues with the guttering again. She said her neighbour was refusing access for work. The following month the landlord’s contractor attended to erect scaffolding but noted the resident’s neighbour had refused access again. Records from September 2022 noted a roofing contractor attended to erect scaffolding to clear gutters.
In October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about disrepair of the roof, external walls and guttering and that there was mould in her bedroom. Later that month the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had scheduled work in November 2022 for an inspector to look at mould issues within the property and a roofing contractor to look at the guttering and roof.
In November 2022 the landlord noted it inspected the resident’s concerns about damp and that she said she had found damp under floorboards in her bedroom. Later that month the resident told the landlord that a guttering issue at the rear of the property had caused water penetration. The following day the landlord told the resident it had raised work to render brickwork at the rear and to inspect her damp concerns.
At the end of January 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said it was 3 months since the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and issues were still unresolved. Around this time, she raised concerns again that her neighbour was not providing access for the work to be completed. In February 2023 the landlord noted it had been told by the resident of her concerns about “large holes” in her bedroom wall that had not been seen by its operative earlier that month.
In August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. an operative from its contractor had attended unannounced with no identification.
2. the operative was unable to explain what they were there to do.
3. it was “common sense” to resolve external issues first.
4. she was unable to use her bedroom and had been waiting months for a surveyor to attend.
5. when she had called the landlord’s repairs team, it had no idea about what was happening.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It said that all contractors were asked to produce identification when attending properties and it apologised to her for the inconvenience caused. It said that a surveyor had now attended to arrange repair work.
In September 2023, after the resident made contact, the Ombudsman requested the landlord provide her with a complaint response. We set out that the resident was concerned about:
1. disrepair to the roof, external walls and guttering.
2. damp and mould in the bedroom and plaster coming away from the walls.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023. It said that although her previous complaint did not relate to repair issues, it would provide her with a response to these. It said:
1. it had reviewed records since January 2021 and had noted the resident had made 15 complaints over this period.
2. it was sorry for the frustration she had experienced attempting to reach a resolution.
3. it noted some issues with repairs not being completed due to operatives being unable to access another flat.
4. it had attended with a loss adjuster in December 2023 and had identified the work that was required.
5. work had been passed to its major works team, who would contact the resident in the new year.
6. it had awarded the resident compensation of £500 for the delay in completing repairs and £100 for the delayed stage 2 complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord again in January 2024. She raised a complaint about contractors completing work in her property. Amongst other things she said they had arrived an hour late and used her toilet without asking. She also raised concerns about the standard of work completed. In response the landlord told her its surveyor would contact her to discuss issues and that it would arrange for another team to attend to complete work.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 February 2024. It noted her concerns about the performance and behaviour of its contractor. It said the conduct and performance reported by the resident was not at the standard it would expect. It said it had now arranged for a different contractor to complete the required work. It awarded her £100 compensation. In response the resident said she was unhappy with the amount awarded. She said her bedroom had been unfit for use for 4 years and the delayed repairs had affected her health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2024. It said:
1. it had looked at its stage 1 complaint response and it considered this was satisfactory.
2. the level of compensation awarded at that time was in line with the situation presented.
3. the resident had provided additional information when requesting escalation of her complaint and it had therefore reviewed the matter afresh.
4. it noted she had reported signs of damp in her bedroom since September 2022.
5. issues had not been resolved despite several inspections and repairs.
6. its records of repairs were not clear and after “much interrogation” it had been unable to determine if it had acted within its policy timescales for individual repairs reported.
The landlord said it had reviewed the situation as a whole and had found failings and delays in the service provided. It said a “significant period of time” had elapsed without satisfactory resolution. It offered the resident compensation of £750. This was made up of £500 for the delays in fully addressing issues and £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter.
The resident made further contact with the landlord in April 2024. She said:
1. she was concerned about pointing and brickwork following the guttering issue.
2. external decoration directed by the Ombudsman previously had not been completed.
3. she remained concerned about access issues.
4. she wanted increased compensation and a “rent rebate” as she had been unable to use her bedroom.
The landlord responded to the resident on 3 May 2024. It said it had looked at the complaint and noted it had awarded £1,350. It said that this was in addition to the £250 compensation awarded following the Ombudsman’s investigation in February 2022. It said it considered it had made a fair and reasonable offer of compensation and would not be increasing this.
The resident told us in January 2025 that the landlord had still not repaired pointing and blown bricks. She expressed her concerns that water penetration and dampness issues could reoccur if this work was not completed.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outlines timeframes for completing repairs. It says:
1. it will complete appointed repairs within 28 calendar days and major works within 90 calendar days.
2. take as little time as possible in completing repairs and update residents about progress.
3. claims of damage to resident’s possessions can be considered where it could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from May 2023 says:
1. it will ensure it has a strong approach to damp and mould that centres on its customers and their health and safety.
2. following reports of damp and mould, it will act in line with its repairs and maintenance policy and damp and mould procedures.
3. it should be solution focused in supporting residents address damp and mould.
Its process map for handling damp and mould reports sets out steps it should take to resolve issues. At its first stage, the landlord should inspect the property and complete a mould wash. It should post-inspect the works and if needed, progress this to the next stage. At the second stage, a repairs supervisor will inspect the issues and raise further works to its inhouse repairs team. If the works were too complex for its repairs team, or if the works completed did not resolve the issues, it would escalate this to the next stage. At the third stage, it should the refer matter to a maintenance surveyor to inspect the damp and mould.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it will close a complaint when it has provided a resolution plan with clear and reasonable timescales for actions. Its complaints policy says its resolutions will reflect the extent of any failings in its service and the impact of these on the resident.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident said the landlord’s handling of repair issues had a negative impact on her health. We are very sorry to learn of this, and the resident’s comments are not disputed. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim. As such, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how she can make such a claim to its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well–being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which she experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

Roof, guttering and brickwork repairs

In her complaints to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident outline repair issues dating back to 2018. In February 2022 the Ombudsman issued a report in respect of the resident’s previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of external repairs and decoration work. This considered events to October 2021. We ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for its delays in handling external repairs to the property. We also recommended that repairs identified in the landlord’s inspection of August 2021 were completed as a priority. In light of the previous investigation, our consideration of this complaint will focus on events since October 2021.

Reports of roof, guttering and brickwork repairs and of the related internal repairs

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords. These include that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach” to damp and mould. It goes on to say that it is imperative that landlords do not leave residents with damp and mould for extended periods of time. It says that not dealing with damp and mould issues at the earliest opportunity can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.

Roof, guttering and brickwork repairs

The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response of December 2023 that it had delayed resolving repair issues. It noted the resident had made 15 complaints about these issues since January 2021 and that she had raised concerns through her MP on 3 occasions. The resident told the landlord in October 2021 of roof issues and of concerns these were causing dampness in her bedroom. It took appropriate action to raise a repair at the beginning of November 2021. At the end of that month, it told the resident it had arranged access with her neighbour for early December 2021.
The resident later confirmed, in January 2022, that this work had been completed. However, she said the contractor had been unable to gain access through her neighbour’s property and had instead completed the work by front access. She also told the landlord of ongoing issues with blocked guttering to the rear and that this was causing dampness in her bedroom. She again raised her concerns about the guttering being blocked in May 2022. Contractors attended to complete guttering work the following month but noted the resident’s neighbour refused access. That month the resident told the landlord of her concerns about this. The landlord had told the resident in January 2022 that it would issue a warning to her neighbour. But it has provided no record of this, or of any other action it took to resolve access issues.
Repair records show work to the guttering was completed in September 2022 and the resident later confirmed the gutter was unblocked. But it should not have taken the landlord so long to do so. In line with its repairs policy the resident could expect the landlord to resolve this repair within 28 days. If access issues prevented it from doing so, it was appropriate for it to communicate with the resident about this. We acknowledge how the issues with access would have added to the complexity of completing work. But it should reasonably have acted to ensure it was able to progress and resolve repairs the resident had reported. That it cannot demonstrate it did so is a failing, particularly as she had said issues were causing dampness in her bedroom. Guttering issues remained unresolved for an extended period, and meant she had to repeatedly raise this. Given these failings, we have ordered that the landlord review whether it has robust processes and guidance in place for escalating cases where repairs are delayed by access issues.
Subsequently, in October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about issues with guttering and external walls at the property. In response it said it had raised an inspection of the roof and guttering. Later the resident told it she considered rendering of brickwork to the rear was needed. The landlord told her in November 2022 and February 2023 that work had been raised in respect of this and to replace wooden fascia. But its recording of work to resolve these external repairs is inadequate, and as a result it is unclear when repairs were undertaken and whether all external work has been completed. For instance, it noted in its stage 2 complaint response of December 2023 that fascia work had been completed on 17 April 2023. But in contact she made with it in April and July 2023 the resident said this work was still outstanding. Further, in June 2023, the landlord noted it had received a quote for this work. This suggests the work was still outstanding at that time. Its repair records do not detail when the work was completed. That was a record keeping failing.
The landlord should have maintained clear communication with the resident about the work, and when it would be completed. She should not have had to continually spend time and trouble chasing it for updates about the progress of this repair.
Its recording of the rendering and external brickwork repair was also inadequate. Although its repair records note this work as “complete” in April 2023, there is no detail of what work had been completed at that time. The resident continued to raise her concerns that this work was still outstanding. She told the landlord in July and August 2023 of her concerns about damaged rendering/brickwork following the issues with the blocked gutter. But there is no evidence it provided her with any adequate response. It should have appropriately addressed her concerns that this work was still outstanding. If it did not consider this work was required, it should reasonably have confirmed this to her. That there is no evidence it appropriately communicated with the resident about this is a failing.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response of 5 March 2024 that it had been unable to determine whether it had acted within its repairs policy timescales in respect of individual repairs. This is clear evidence of record keeping failings. Landlord should have in place robust systems and processes for maintaining clear and accurate records. Without these, it cannot adequately demonstrate how it responded to repair reports from the resident in line with its obligations. Clear records would also have assisted it in monitoring the progress of repair work, and in taking escalating action where necessary.
The landlord completed work to replace guttering at the property in November 2023, and this was confirmed by the resident. However, in light of record keeping failings, we have ordered that it review whether all necessary external repairs have been completed. In doing so, it should provide a specific response to the resident’s concerns that brickwork and rendering repairs are still outstanding.
We have found a number of failings in the landlord’s repair record keeping. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management outlines the importance of good information management in order for the landlord to meet repairs obligations. We have ordered that the landlord undertake a review of its processes and guidance for staff in respect of repairs record keeping.

Internal repairs

The resident had told the landlord repeatedly since October 2021 of issues with damp in her bedroom, which she believed to be due to roof and guttering problems. But there is no evidence it arranged to inspect internally. That was a failing by the landlord, and contrary to its damp and mould process. While external issues had not been resolved at that time, the landlord should still have attended to inspect internally to consider what the resident had reported about damp in her bedroom. Doing so would have allowed it to understand the extent of the issues so that it could take any appropriate action. When the resident complained to the landlord in October 2022, she described the internal wall as being damp with plaster coming away. She also said that the ceiling was black with mould.
As noted above, the landlord has acknowledged in its complaint responses failings in resolving repairs. It appropriately inspected the resident’s concerns about damp in October 2022. However, its subsequent progress to address issues reported was slow and poorly coordinated. It has also provided inadequate records of its inspections of her concerns. It said in its subsequent stage 2 complaint response that its damp inspection of 24 October 2022 had found the property to be “clear of damp” but required plastering and painting. But its records do not detail this.
Later, in November 2022, the resident reported further damp to the landlord. Its subsequent attendance to inspect issues was timely. However, it again failed to make clear records of this inspection. It noted this had lasted nearly 2 hours. But its records do not detail what had been found beyond what the resident had reported, and that she wanted a surveyor to attend. It should have maintained clear record of what it had found, and what actions were needed. Without these it cannot demonstrate that it acted reasonably and in line with the findings of the inspections. These were further record keeping failings.
The resident questioned in December 2022 what it was doing to address damp issues. She again asked that a surveyor attend and that the landlord provide her with “answers” about what it intended to do. By the end of January 2023, the resident was still waiting for the landlord to respond to her about issues. Later she said that the landlord had attended at the beginning of February 2023, and it wrote to her later that month to advise her of an appointment to hack off defective render in the bedroom and mould wash affected areas. But it again failed to store clear records of its inspection.
The resident told the landlord in February and March 2023 that parts of her bedroom wall were now “bare brick” and there were large cracks in it. The landlord later said it had attended in July 2023 and had found this to be the case. But, again, it has not provided records of this inspection or its surveyor’s attendance in August 2023. These were further record keeping failings. It also poorly communicated and co-ordinated actions to address the resident’s concerns about cracks in the wall. It failed to clearly set out what it was doing to address this. Instead, between May and August 2023, it sent 3 different contactors to complete plastering work.
The landlord’s surveyor did not attend until August 2023. That was after the resident had complained about a contractor attending unannounced to complete plastering work. At this time, she also said she had been waiting “months” for a surveyor to inspect issues and she had “got to the end of [her] patience” trying to resolve issues. The landlord unreasonably delayed arranging for its surveyor to inspect the property so that it could begin to establish the extent of work needed. It also wasted resources, and the resident’s time, sending out contractors to complete work when it was yet to address whether there may be any structural issues.
The landlord later said in its complaint response that it attended again to inspect issues in December 2023, along with a loss adjuster from its insurer. It said it was confirmed then that there was not a structural issue. Again, the landlord’s records do not contain details of this inspection. That was a further record keeping failing. It was appropriate for the landlord to fully consider potential structural issues, and we acknowledged that steps needed to do so would have added to the time taken to resolve repairs. But it is unclear why it took so long for it to do so. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response of March 2024 that it could have dealt with the situation quicker. We agree. It poorly coordinated and communicated about action needed since the resident reported her concerns about “large holes” in the wall in February 2023. It unreasonably delayed work to resolve this issue, and work was not completed until April 2024. That was far outside its 90-day timescales for major work.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof, guttering and brickwork repairs and of the related internal repairs. So far it has awarded her £1,350 for failings in its handling of repairs, and the distress and inconvenience caused. While this goes some way towards acknowledging the impact of its failings, we consider a further award of redress to be appropriate. The resident told the landlord of issues with damp in her bedroom since October 2021. She told us that due to the issues in that room she was not able to decorate it or use it for when her parents or daughter visited. As a result of failings by the landlord, work was not completed to address repair issues in the bedroom until March 2024. That was a significant delay. During this time the resident spent a considerable time and effort attempting to resolve issues.
With full consideration of the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we consider a further award of compensation to be appropriate in recognition of the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home. The resident’s property is a 2-bedroom flat and we have calculated the loss of enjoyment as 10% between October 2021 and April 2024. She paid weekly rent of between £138.32 and £150.85 during this period. Using these amounts, we have calculated the loss of enjoyment payment to be £1,850. It is acknowledged that it is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home. We have ordered that it make this further award to the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident has raised more than 10 complaints with the landlord since October 2021 about its handling of roof, gutter and internal repairs. During that time, she also raised concerns that it was taking insufficient action to gain access to the rear of the property. The landlord’s records show only a small number of these complaint were appropriately responded to. Against records of some of these complaints it noted they had been “cancelled” or “problem solved”, but without clearly noting the reason for this. While we have seen evidence of it acknowledging some of these complaints, in many instances there is no record of any complaint response to the resident.
In April 2023 it told the resident it would respond to her 2 repair complaints she had raised within the same response. But there is no record on file of any subsequent response to the complaint. The landlord should have maintained record of how it had responded to each of the complaints raised by the resident. Without doing so, it cannot evidence that it has acted appropriately and in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) to address the resident’s concerns. However, that she had to continually raise complaints about the same issues is evidence the landlord was not taking appropriate action to resolve her concerns. The resident was caused frustration and extended time and trouble repeatedly raising these complaints.
On another occasion, in January 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint of October 2022. In response the landlord said that it had received an enquiry from her MP. It said the issues she had raised would now be addressed through a response to the MP as this was “an escalation above a stage 2 complaint”. But the landlord should still have responded to the resident’s escalation request by providing a stage 2 complaint response. Any response to her MP was in addition to this and should not have been considered as an alterative response. Not providing the resident with a stage 2 response to her concerns prevented her from referring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent review of issues. These were complaint handling failings and a departure from its complaints policy and the Code.
We have seen other failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. She complained in August 2023 about its contractor’s attendance. Although its response to this complaint was timely, it took a narrow view of the issues raised by the resident. She had expressed her frustration about the landlord sending contractors to complete plastering work when she had waited “months” for a surveyor to attend. She also expressed her view that it was “unacceptable and unsatisfactory” that she was having to pay rent for a room she could not use. In its response the landlord apologised for its contractor attending without identification and noted that its surveyor was now arranging work. But it gave no consideration to what the resident had said about the length of time she had waited for this. Nor did it respond to what she said about not being able to use a bedroom. The landlord missed an opportunity to fully consider her concerns and put things right for her.
The landlord also gave no indication of when the resident could expect work to be completed. Given the time she had already waited and the confusion about what work was needed, it should reasonably have set out a clear plan of action to resolve issues. Doing so would have provided the resident with some reassurance about when to expect work to start to address longstanding repair issues.
At the end of September 2023, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide a response to the resident’s escalation request of January 2023. Despite this, the landlord did not do so until 18 December 2023, and only after the Ombudsman made further contact. That was far outside timescales set out in its complaints policy. It further delayed the resident receiving an appropriate response to her concerns. However, we note the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and awarded her £100 for this. It also acknowledged the large number of complaints the resident had needed to make during this period and the frustration she had felt attempting to reach a resolution. That was also appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of December 2023 acknowledged the concerns the resident had raised about her neighbour restricting access and delaying repairs. But it did not fully consider or acknowledge any failings, on its part, to take necessary action to address this. The landlord should reasonably have done so. Without a clear response on the issue the resident’s concerns about this were left unresolved. We acknowledge that it would be restricted by General Data Protection Regulations. But the landlord could have explained action it would consider to ensure access issues did not prevent it completing any necessary repairs.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord in January 2024 about the conduct and performance of the contractor completing work. It took timely and appropriate action to arrange for a new contractor to attend. This was positive action by the landlord, clearly aimed at quickly resolving the concerns the resident had reported. The landlord awarded the resident £100 in recognition of the impact of the issues and this was appropriate. It also explained how its surveyor would attend to post inspect the work to ensure it had been completed to a reasonable standard. That was also appropriate.
Later, when the resident escalated her complaint on 4 February 2024, the landlord provided a further stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024. In this it appropriately apologised for the slight delay in its response. It noted that it considered the level of compensation awarded to the resident in its stage 1 response was reasonable. However, it reviewed the case as the resident had provided further information. That was appropriate. At this time the landlord identified the significant delays in its previous handling of repairs. It noted that the resident had reported damp issues affecting her bedroom since September 2022. But as set out earlier, the resident had been reporting this since at least October 2021.
The landlord awarded the resident further compensation of £750. This was made up of £500 in recognition of the significant delays in the repairs and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was positive and an attempt by the landlord to recognise the impact of its delays in completing longstanding repairs. But as noted above, it did not take into account the length of time over which issues had been ongoing.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. So far it had made an award of £100 in recognition of its complaint handling failings. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
In a report recently issued to the landlord, we have ordered that it consider further training for its complaint handling staff. This is with the aim of ensuring that staff are aware of the importance of addressing all issues, and of agreeing new timescales with residents when complaint responses are delayed. In light of this order, and to avoid duplication, we have not made a further order in respect of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of issues on her health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof, guttering and brickwork repairs and of the related internal repairs.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the impact of failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £3,450, made up of:
  1. £1,850 for the loss of enjoyment of her home between October 2021 and April 2024.
  2. £1,350 already awarded by the landlord for the impact of failings in its handling of the repairs.
  3. £250 for complaint handling failings identified. This includes the £100 award previously made by the landlord.
  4. payments already made to the resident should be deducted from the total.
3. contact the resident to arrange to check whether any external repairs are outstanding.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. undertake a review of its processes and guidance for staff in respect of repairs and complaint handling record keeping. This should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. review whether it has robust processes and guidance in place for escalating cases where repairs are delayed by access issues.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. respond to the resident’s concerns about outstanding external decoration, if it has not already done so.
2. provide the resident with information on how she can make a personal injury claim to its insurer.
3. provide the resident with information about how she can make a claim to its insurer for any damaged possessions.
4. contact the resident to confirm it has accurately recorded all vulnerabilities for her.