London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202112228)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112228

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s request for replacement windows and front door with a letterbox.
2. The resident’s request for fencing repairs.
3. The resident’s request for the landlord to install bollards to the rear of the property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident completed a mutual exchange by deed of assignment to the property on 8 December 2008. The resident assigned to an assured tenancy agreement which commenced on 8 May 2006. The property is a three-bedroom mid terraced house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a visual impairment and physical vulnerabilities.
This Service made a request to the landlord for a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement dated 8 May 2006 which he assigned to in December 2008. The landlord provided a copy of the assignment paperwork but has not provided a copy of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. “The landlord’s repair and maintenance responsibilities are set out in legislation, regulation and our tenancy, lease, transfer and management agreements. Where the terms of such agreements differ from those set out in this policy those terms shall take precedence”.
2. The landlord is responsible for “boundary fencing and gates (fencing and gates which separate the garden from a public area)”. The resident is responsible for “dividing fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate a garden from a neighbours garden)”.
3. The landlord is responsible for “the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundaries”.
4. When diagnosing repairs reported by vulnerable residents:
  1. The landlord considers whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health.
  2. It treats repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk.
  3. Where a resident has poor hearing, or is visually impaired, or has learning difficulties it takes extra time to ensure that they are clear about any work being undertaken to ensure that their concerns and interests are addressed.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
A note published on the landlord’s website on 2 February 2023 says that it had partnered with a contractor on a healthy homes programme. This focused on tackling the root cause of damp problems to carry out repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring.
The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy says:
1. The definition of a vulnerable resident is someone with any condition or circumstance which places them at risk in their home.
2. “Some residents will openly tell us about a support need or vulnerability. When we provide a service residents should be asked if they have any particular needs, or vulnerabilities that we should take into account”.
The compensation policy says that compensation may be offered “when the landlord fails to respond or process a complaint within its agreed timescales, or where it does not comply with this Service’s complaint handling code”. The landlord will award discretionary compensation “when the failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience or where the resident has spent unnecessary time and effort getting the landlord to put things right”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one complaint is acknowledged by the end of the next working day and a response provided in writing within ten working days. A stage two complaint is acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to provide responses within those timescales it will explain the reason for the delay to the resident and provide its complaint response within a further ten working days.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records showed that the resident first made contact in April 2013 about installing bollards at the rear of his property to prevent damage to the boundary fence. The landlord advised the resident that this could be an estate improvement and arranged for a member of its staff to visit. The landlord later said that it could not install the bollards as there was not enough space to put them.
In January 2015 the resident reported that the rear fence had been “rammed” by a car. The resident said that a surveyor had been out to the property previously and had requested bollards to be put up to stop cars breaking through the fence. In November 2015 the landlord’s records showed that it had completed a form with a recommendation from the police to install bollards. On 18 May 2016 the landlord raised an order to install four bollards.
An all-day appointment was booked for 11 July 2016 to install the bollards. On the same day the landlord contacted the resident to advise that the job had been cancelled. The landlord’s records showed that it would be looking at alternatives as the bollards would not stop fly tipping and there was a cost query. On 12 July 2016 the maintenance supervisor had said that the job had not been cancelled and needed to be rebooked with the planners to fit the bollards. On 27 July 2016 another member of its staff said the bollards were not needed.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord’s records showed that a white van had smashed into the resident’s rear fence and an order was raised to make it safe. The resident again requested bollards to be installed at the rear of the property.
On 19 August 2021 the landlord’s records showed an internal email relating to the installation of bollards. It said that the resident had spoken to a member of its staff about the rear fence being hit four times in five years. The fence needed a complete refix and that the landlord had permission from the local authority to install bollards and that a request had been sent to the planning team. The landlord said that it had not had permission and it had sent a request to the mobile caretaking team who said this was not something they could do.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident had been reporting repairs to his front gate and fence since 2014 and that the landlord had completed repairs. On 28 April 2021 an operative had attended and was ordering items to fix the fence but was then advised that the landlord no longer completed these jobs. Its policy had changed for fencing.
The landlord’s repairs logs showed that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2019 as a window had blown and misted over in the living room. There was also a window loose in the frame which was dangerously rattling in the bedroom and two further windows which had warped and would not shut properly.
On 9 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report mould around the bedroom window. The landlord raised an order to its contractor to complete a healthy homes survey.
The landlord’s contractor completed a healthy homes survey on 4 February 2021 at the resident’s home. The report said that there was evidence of damp in the property with a moisture reading of 20.1. One of the questions in the report asked for the cause of the damp. The response to this question was that the window wood frames were very old and rotten, very unstable and in need of repair. The report said that:
1. There were water marks on the walls and that the property suffered from mould which was visible.
2. There were no trickle vents present on the windows.
3. The kitchen left wall had 0.5 by 2 metres mould. The bedroom front wall 0.5 by 1 metre mould and second bedroom 0.5 by 1 metre.
4. The assessor recommended cleaning and shielding.
5. The summary overview asked, “In your opinion please summarise the main problems in the property and what the most important action would be to resolve the problems”. The response from the assessor was that the property was structurally in good condition but all the window wood frames in the property were rotten, very soft and moist. They were very unstable and needed repairing. It also stated that the resident was elderly and found it hard to clean.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 February 2021 and asked for an update on the windows, he said that he had been told that the windows had mould and were rotten. The landlord’s records of 11 March 2021 showed that work for mould had been carried out.
On 12 March 2021 the landlord’s repairs logs said, “critical follow up work from contractor visit repairs must be completed”, this was in relation to all the wooden framed windows being rotten and unstable. There were further records for 12 May 2021 which also referred to a contractor’s inspection of 27 April 2021 stating that all windows were rotten and not fit for purpose and it warranted new windows to be installed.
On 21 July 2021 an inspection of the windows was cancelled. On 5 August 2021 another repairs log showed as cancelled for “all windows are rotten and are not fit for purpose and new windows are needed”. On 12 August 2021 the landlord requested a member of its maintenance team to visit the property and assess the windows and doors.
On 18 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint about his windows and door, his fencing repairs and the installation of bollards. The resident did not receive an acknowledgement and contacted this Service. On 6 September 2021 this Service contacted the landlord and asked for the resident’s complaint to be progressed through its complaints process. The resident had asked for the following as a resolution to his complaint:
1. For the landlord to carry out all outstanding repairs to the fence and gate at the front of the property.
2. For the landlord to install new windows and a new front door. The resident said that the windows were rotten, and this affected his asthma and health. The resident told this service that his front door did not have a letterbox and that his front door was a back door.
3. For the landlord to install the bollards as previously advised by the landlord’s contractors to the rear of the property.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the stage one complaint. On 10 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was waiting for an inspection report and that a response would be provided by 17 September 2021. On 16 September 2021 the landlord requested an extension to provide the stage one response.
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 21 September 2021. It said:
1. It had reviewed the information available on its system and noted:
  1. On 5 August 2019 the resident had contacted the landlord to request repairs to the front gate and fence panel which had been damaged. An operative attended on 17 September 2019 to renew the fence and adjust the hinges on the gate.
  2. The resident had reported that the fence had fallen between his and his neighbour’s home on 29 December 2020. An operative attended and discovered materials were needed to repair the fence. An appointment was made for 18 August 2021 and on that day the operative reported that he was unable to carry out the repair as it was not the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that it would have been helpful to have explained this during the initial visit when the repair was reported. The operative had spoken with a manager who had confirmed that the estate was designed as open plan. Therefore all residents who had front fencing would be responsible for repairs or renewal of these fences which were part of their home.
  4. The landlord’s records revealed that the fence repair which was completed in 2019 was carried out in error. It should have recognised that the repair did not fall within the repairs and maintenance responsibilities of the landlord, and it apologised for the error.
2. The resident had advised that the boundary fence was damaged by vehicles 11 years ago. On 26 July 2021 a repair was reported to the landlord that a vehicle had reversed into the rear boundary fence and a crime number was provided. An appointment was made for 20 September 2021 and the repairs were completed.
3. The landlord confirmed that its building surveyor had visited the resident’s home on 9 September 2021.
  1. The landlord’s surveyor had advised that the front fence and gate were the resident’s responsibility.
  2. The rear fence was repaired on 20 September 2021 and four fence posts were replaced.
  3. The front door was deemed to be fit for purpose and in line with current requirements.
  4. A repair had been raised to replace the kitchen window. It provided the name of its contractor and said that the missing window stay in the rear bedroom would also be replaced. The remaining windows had been deemed serviceable and in good working order. The landlord said it was sorry if this was not the outcome the resident had hoped for.
4. The landlord said it had liaised with the property and regional managers about the resident’s request to install bollards at the rear of the property. It explained that it did not own the public footpath and was therefore unable to install bollards. Requests should be made to the local authority who owned the footpath. It said it had made previous requests to the local authority and they responded that they did not have funding to install bollards to protect private fences. It said that further appeal or discussion would not alter the outcome. It advised the resident to contact the local authority.
5. It said that the level of service the resident received was not reflective of the high standards the landlord aimed to provide. Repairs and correct information should have been managed more effectively. Compensation of £80 was offered for the inconvenience, time and effort.
The resident made a request to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on the 14th of October 2021. On 22 October 2021 the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints process:
1. It provided an overview of its response from stage one.
2. It said that it was unable to confirm the resident’s claim that the landlord’s member of staff had told him that the windows and doors would all be renewed. It asked the resident if he had written confirmation about the renewal of windows and the door and to provide this.
3. It said that it confirmed that the majority of windows and doors (including the front door) were deemed to be in good condition and did not require repairs or replacement. The kitchen window would be renewed, and an order had been issued for this.
4. The landlord’s programme management team had said that the windows were due for review in 2022 to 2023 and would be assessed to see if they qualified for renewal under its planned programme of works. This did not guarantee replacement but would mean the windows and doors would be surveyed.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s comments about the front door and not having a letter box. It said that a post box was a suitable alternative for mail. It was unable to uphold the resident’s request for the door to be replaced as it was in good condition. It said that it was an external grade door which was in working order. It acknowledged the resident’s comments that his mail had been tampered with and that the matter should be reported to the police. The landlord offered to install another mailbox if the resident was concerned about the safety of his mail. It asked the resident to let the landlord know if he wished to accept the offer.
6. The landlord had reconsidered its decision to repair the front fence as its customer service centre had agreed the repair order when the resident made contact in August 2021. It said that this would be a one-off repair and that the fence would be the resident’s responsibility going forward. The reason for this was that the fence was not part of the original design, and it was installed by a previous resident. The landlord offered to remove the fence and return the garden to its original design and for the resident to confirm whether he wanted this.
7. It apologised that it was not consistent in its communication about the fence repairs and said that it had completed repairs in the past which had heightened the resident’s expectations. It acknowledged that the resident had advised that the fence was beneficial due to being visually impaired and that it enabled him to hear visitors opening the gate. It said if the resident needed any adaptations due to disability, an occupational therapy (OT) assessment would be needed.
8. It could not locate any information about the bollards or that the local authority had granted permission for the landlord to install bollards. The landlord was unable to install bollards for the reasons highlighted in its stage one decision letter. It said that this was not open to further review. It acknowledged the resident’s thoughts about the cost of repairs to the fence if it was further damaged. If the fence received any further damage, then repairs would be arranged.
9. The landlord offered £100 in compensation for the inconsistencies with information provided and the time and effort the resident invested in contacting the landlord.
The landlord’s letter dated 22 October 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that his complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 25 October 2021 the resident contacted this Service and said that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident told this Service that:
1. He was visually impaired and the front door was a security concern to him. It was a glazed door which was more like a back door and it was not suitable.
2. The landlord had agreed to change the kitchen window but not the other windows in the property despite a survey advising that the windows required replacement.
3. The fencing issues had been resolved and the landlord had made repairs.
The landlord’s records of 22 December 2021 showed that the resident had contacted the landlord about the outstanding issues. He said:
1. He did not want his kitchen window replaced in the winter months as he was severely asthmatic. He did not accept that only the kitchen window needed replacing and had been told by the landlord’s contractor that the windows were rotten and needed replacing. Three carpenters and the landlord’s contractor who carried out the healthy homes survey had all said the windows were rotten.
2. The landlord’s surveyor had said that the front door was a back door and there was no letter box.
A second healthy homes survey was provided to this Service as part of the evidence for this investigation. The report dated 27 January 2022 said:
1. There was visible mould and mildew.
2. That repairs were outstanding and that all window frames were rotten and would need replacement.
3. The bathroom glazing had come off the frame and the resident was concerned it would fall off.
4. Whilst some work was carried out to shield the mould and it had not returned in those areas, there was further mould. The bathroom ceiling had 1.7 by 2 metres. 2 by 2.4 metres on the front wall, 1.7 by 2.4 metres on the right wall, 2 by 2.4 metres on the back wall and 2.4 by 1.7 on the left wall. Other rooms also showed an increase in mould growth on multiple surfaces from the previous report.
5. The summary on the second report showed that it cleaned an area of 25.61 metres on nine surfaces and that the windows at the front of the property were single glazed.
A further stage one response was provided on 8 June 2022 in relation to a new complaint about the front door and letterbox. The landlord wrote to the resident and said that the front door was in good working order and would not be replaced. The original door was wooden and part glazed. It was replaced in 2010 with a UPVC replica of the original door, apart from the letter box. At the time of installation it was decided not to install a door with a letterbox as this was a vulnerable point on the door. Criminals could use it to peer through for signs of an empty home, push unwanted items through the door and thieves could use it to fish keys out of the property. The decision to install a mailbox on the wall was deemed safest. It acknowledged that the resident would prefer to have a letter box on the door but the alteration was not viable.

Assessment and findings

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 this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows and front door

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for replacement windows and door as:
1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including windows. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
2. In its stage one response the landlord said that the kitchen window would be replaced but that the “remaining windows had been deemed serviceable and in good working order”. Its stage two response also said that the windows were deemed to be in good condition and did not require repairs or replacement. The landlord’s responses were contradictory to the two healthy homes surveys carried out by its contractors and their indication that the windows were rotten and in need of repair or replacement.
3. The landlord’s policy states that it treats repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk. The resident reported mould around his bedroom window on 9 December 2019, but a survey was not carried out until 4 February 2020.
4. While the landlord cleaned and shielded the mould affected areas it failed to act on its healthy homes survey recommendations and findings. The second survey indicated that there was an increased presence of mould. The landlord’s responses failed to mention the healthy homes surveys, the fact that the windows were rotten and needed replacement, the mould associated with the windows or consider how this could have affected the resident’s health.
5. The landlord’s policy also said that where a resident has poor hearing or is visually impaired or has learning difficulties it takes extra time to ensure that they are clear about any work being undertaken and their concerns are addressed. The landlord considers whether a defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has taken the resident’s concerns seriously or addressed them. The resident advised the landlord that he was severely asthmatic and the poor glazing impacted his health. The landlord has not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, the impact or detriment that the poor glazing or mould may have had on his health. The healthy homes survey said that the resident was elderly and found it difficult to clean.
6. The landlord’s records evidenced that it was aware of the reports and in one record from a member of its staff said, “I can see the contractors report which says the windows are rotten”.
7. The landlord’s staff said that they would not promise new windows and doors as this would sit outside of their remit. It said that it only carried out repairs to existing windows and replaced single items which were beyond repair. The staff dealing with the reports could not make the decision as to whether the windows needed replacing as their focus was on their remit of repair. It said that it would only replace what was immediately necessary at the time of the visit. The landlord does not appear to have considered that they were rotten or that the glazing was coming away from the frame.
8. As stated in this Service’s spotlight report on damp & mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. The resident has not been kept informed or been given any indication as to when the windows may be replaced.
9. The landlord’s response was therefore not appropriate.
The landlord’s records showed that the front door was a back door, however it said it was of external grade and therefore could be used as a front door.
1. It said it was in good order and offered to replace the post box but failed to consider the residents vulnerabilities or visual impairment or the impact on him in relation to having post go missing from an external post box.
2. In a second stage one response on 8 June 2022 the landlord said it had replaced the door in 2010.
  1. The resident previously had the facility of a letterbox in his original front door. However, the landlord made a decision to provide a front door without a letterbox. The landlord’s justification for this was that the letterbox was a vulnerable point on the door, criminals could use it to peer through for signs of an empty home, unwanted items could be pushed through the letter box and thieves could use it to fish keys out of the property. The decision to install a letterbox on the wall for mail was deemed safest.
  2. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident suffered from these dangers that informed the landlord’s decision. There is no evidence that the landlord obtained the resident’s agreement or consulted him about this matter before altering the property. The resident told this Service that he is severely visually impaired and that the front door being 50% glazed caused him concerns with security. He said that all other properties near his home had a proper front door with a letterbox. The landlord has failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns or consider any adjustments due to his vulnerabilities.

The resident’s request for fencing repairs

During this investigation the resident confirmed to this Service that the landlord had changed its decision and made the necessary repairs to his front garden fence and gate as a one off gesture.
This Service has not had sight of the 2006 tenancy agreement however the resident informed this Service that under the terms of his original tenancy the landlord is obliged to carry out repairs to the fencing. Whilst the landlord’s policy changed, the original tenancy agreement would override any policies.
According to its records, the landlord has been completing fencing repairs to the resident’s front gate and fence since 2014. It provided inconsistent information by completing repairs and advising the resident that they would again complete further repairs only to then refuse to carry out the repairs. It then carried out the repairs as a one off and advised the resident he was responsible going forward.
On 11 November 2021 an internal email said “in terms of the fencing why don’t we make a generous offer to remove and return the garden to open plan to match the rest of the estate, this would take away our maintenance responsibility going forward” suggesting that it was the landlord’s responsibility. In further records it said that if the fence was in situ it would have been gifted as it was non standard to the original property. There is however no evidence to show that the fence was gifted and in previous emails suggests that the resident inherited the fence from the previous occupant. Therefore, the landlord would be responsible as it was in situ when the resident moved in.
The landlord has not considered the resident’s visual impairment and comments that his front gate assists in knowing when someone is coming to his home but instead offered to remove it completely. The landlord has established a practice with the resident since 2014 in completing repairs to his front fence and gate. This, together with the landlord’s contradictory communication set out in the previous paragraphs amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

The resident’s request for the landlord to install bollards to the rear of the property.

The resident had asked for bollards to be installed in 2013. In 2016 the landlord raised an order to install four bollards and gave the resident a date on which they would be installed. This was later cancelled by a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord’s records showed that a different member of staff had said that the job was not cancelled and needed to be rebooked and a further member of its staff had then said they were not needed.
The landlord said that it could find no record of the local authority agreeing to have bollards installed however it had previously raised an order for them to be installed in 2016. The landlord also said it was looking at alternatives as it would not prevent fly tipping and there was a cost query. The resident had not mentioned fly tipping but wanted the bollards to prevent cars from causing damage to the fence.
The landlord’s responses provided no explanation for why the order to install bollards had been cancelled. It also did not investigate alternative solutions or explain to the resident why the bollards were no longer being installed.
The was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s responses.

Complaint Handling.

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to raise a complaint on 18 August 2021. It should have acknowledged the resident’s request the next day and provided a response within 10 working days. The resident had to approach this Service to get his complaint raised. The landlord’s responses did not acknowledge its failure to raise the resident’s complaint.
The stage one complaint of 18 August 2021 was acknowledged on 6 September 2021 following this Service’s intervention. A response was provided on 21 September 2021, 15 working days later. The landlord had however communicated with the resident to advise him that it needed an extension to provide its response.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two on 21 September 2021 and this was acknowledged on 23 September 2021. A response was provided on 22 October 2021, 23 working days later. This was three days over the 20 working days outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the inconsistent information provided, time and trouble the resident had invested in contacting the landlord.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to raise a complaint. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the resident’s time and trouble in having to contact this Service to get his complaint raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s responses to:
1. the resident’s request to replace the windows and front door.
2. the resident’s request for fencing repairs.
3. the resident’s request to install bollards to the rear of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider the resident’s health, vulnerabilities or any detriment the windows may have had on his health with an increased presence of mould in the property. It failed to act on its own healthy homes survey recommendations which indicated that the windows were rotten and in need of repair or replacement. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s visual impairment and his concerns about his front door.
The landlord provided inconsistent information about fencing repairs and had not managed the resident’s expectations. It had established a practice of repairing the fence since 2014 and not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s explanation of why it could not install bollards at the rear of the property was not reasonable. It had ordered the installation of the bollards in 2016 and then cancelled the order without providing any explanation to the resident or alternative solutions.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the residents request to make a formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord should pay the resident compensation in the amount £1300:
1. £500 for failing to address the resident’s concerns in relation to the windows and door or consider his vulnerabilities.
2. £150 for providing inconsistent information to the resident in relation to fencing repairs.
3. £150 for the failure to install the bollards as promised in 2016 and providing no explanation for cancelling the order or alternative solutions.
4. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
5. £100 for poor complaint handling.
6. £100 offered in its stage two response, if not already paid.
Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a full survey to be carried out by an independent contractor or surveyor of the windows. The findings of the report should be provided to the resident and this Service.
2. Should the survey recommend that the windows should be replaced, within a further four weeks provide a specific timescale to this Service and the resident of when they will be replaced.
3. Check the property for mould and carry out any required works.
4. Install a letterbox in the resident’s front door or reconsider its decision and replace the resident’s front door with a proper front door with a letterbox.
5. Install the bollards as agreed in 2016 or explore alternative solutions to preventing cars from ramming the rear fence.
6. The landlord should consider its vulnerable resident’s policy and make reasonable adjustments for the resident’s vulnerabilities and continue to carry out repairs to the resident’s front fence and gate for the duration of the resident’s tenancy.