Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202109843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109843

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

21 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property at the time, and shortly after, she moved in.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for damage to her personal belongings due to water ingress and damp.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord. The property is a two bed upper floor flat. The shared ownership lease commenced on 11 November 2018. The property was handed over to the landlord’s management on 31 January 2019. The property had a 12 month defect period which expired on 1 February 2020. The resident purchased the lease on 30 September 2020 and was the first person to occupy the property. The Landlord has confirmed that its records note that the resident is a wheelchair user.
While it is acknowledged that the resident has contended that her physical and mental health has been significantly affected by the issues in the property, this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct, causal link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Summary of events

On 11 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident following a telephone conversation earlier that day. The landlord noted that the resident’s complaint concerned:
1. Matters that occurred immediately after she moved in:
  1. That she had asked for the shower head to be replaced before moving in and this was not done.
  2. The resident had called the landlord the day after moving in and an appointment was raised for an engineer to attend to switched the boiler on. After the boiler was switched on it was not functioning properly and she had issues for a number of weeks. When she called to report this she was told this would be her responsibility to repair as shareholders are responsible for internal issues. The resident disagreed with this as this issue had occurred straight after moving into the property.
  3. The resident also said that there were issues with her fridge freezer, washing machine and cooker. The appliances were under warranty and so the resident arranged for these to be looked at, and was told by the warranty engineer that it would be for the landlord to fit a storage compartment to the fridge freezer.
2. Matters that occurred a few days after moving in:
  1. The ceiling did not look right. The resident said that she later found out this was water ingress
  2. There were issues with the windows.
  3. A piece of the front door fell out which the resident said she cut her foot on.
  4. She cut herself on the skirting board in the living room.
  5. She noticed rust on the balcony.
  6. In the bathroom there were gaps in the tiling around the sink and it was not properly grouted. The grouting in the bathroom was very rough and she cut herself.
  7. She took pictures and reported the above issues to the landlord who told her these issues would be her responsibility and only provided her with details of the building insurance .
3. That on 2 December 2020, the building insurer attended and confirmed that there was an issue with water ingress that it would rectify and that it would raise the other issues with the landlord. The resident explained that her health greatly declined at this time due to the issues with the property and not feeling supported . The resident said that she collapsed and emergency services had to be called.
4. That on 3 December 2020 there was a leak and the property flooded. The building insurance team resolved the issue with the water ingress but, despite the landlord having been contacted by her MP, none of the other issues were resolved
5. The resident’s desire outcome was that she would like to be moved to another property, compensation for the damage to her property caused by the leak in December 2020 and compensation for the health issues she had experienced since moving into the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2021 to confirm that:
1. The shower seal needed replacing, she wanted the £30 this had cost to be refunded.
2. Her damaged curtains had cost £1,850, which she wanted the landlord to refund her for.
3. She wanted the landlord to install the same rail that was on the back of her bathroom door to her bedroom door.
4. She needed the landlord to open all the window air vents for her as she could not open them due to her disability.
The landlord responded the same day to advise that the resident’s additional request to have her shower and toilet repaired had not been agreed as this would fall under the resident’s responsibility.
On 19 May 2021:
1. The landlord held a complaint case conference, where it was agreed that it would cover the works to repair the toilet and the toilet seat cover.
2. An internal landlord email stated that at the time of sale the Sales Executive had had a long conversation with the resident about the suitability of the property before inviting her to view to ensure it was suitable for her needs. The resident was accompanied by her son to the viewing to ensure they were happy. The resident did have some questions regarding assistance with removals, fitting a wardrobe and some blinds but there was not any discussions around other issues.
3. The landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would be extending the deadline for its complaint response to 28 May 2021 to enable its Aftercare Manager to attend the property on 26 May 2021. The resident was asked to confirm if they would be available to provide access.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord emailed its stage one response to the resident. In its response the landlord said that, as a shared owner and in line with the terms of her lease, repairs/works which were within the demise of the resident’s flat fell under her responsibility. The End of Defects inspection occurred at the end of the first year of the property being handed over from the developer, this being before the resident moved in. Following the inspection on 26 May 2021:
1. It would be taking no further action regarding the following which it said would fall under the resident’s responsibilities:
  1. The shower screen, which landlord said that it understood that the resident had now repaired.
  2. Any modifications to how the towel rail operated.
  3. The shower divert valve, which had snapped.
  4. The black mark on the bedroom wall, as this was not picked up at the building handover, or during the end of defects or void inspections.
  5. The small shrinkage cracks were minor and normal and would normally be rectified when the resident decorated her home.
  6. 2 paint marks and a chip on the front door were not picked up during snagging, end of defects or the void inspection and therefore the landlord did not accept liability for these items.
2. No issue with the finish of the grouting was identified and the After Care Manager was satisfied with the finish of the skirting boards.
3. The Aftercare Manager confirmed that the water pooling under the balcony boards and there being no roof covering to the balcony were part of the design and not a defect. However, the Aftercare Manager would investigate the discolouration to the fabricated steel, with the manufacturer and the Employers Agent, to determine if the landlord could claim via the building warranty. The landlord said that it would update the resident when it had a response to its enquiries.
4. The repair to the resident’s toilet seat was completed by the landlord as a goodwill gesture.
5. It would arrange for the area of the small water mark on the lounge ceiling to be made good and for it to be stain blocked and painted.
6. It had provided the resident with advice around reducing condensation, including keeping the trickle vents in her lounge and main bedroom windows open, as at the time of the inspection these were closed and the Aftercare Manager had noted that water and black mould around the bottom of the main bedroom window, the edge of the carpet around the door in the lounge was damp as a result of excess condensation running down the door/windows, and that the tumble dryer was located in the lounge. The landlord confirmed that access was not provided to the second bedroom.
7. It would also carrying out further inspections to clarify if there were build faults contributing to condensation issues, which it expected to complete by 30 June 2021, following which it would be able to advise the resident further on its position regarding any liability for compensation. If no build issues were found the resident would need to make a claim on her contents insurance for the damaged items she had identified.
8. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s reports of health concerns since she moved in. The landlord attached an insurance form that the resident could complete about this and provided the email address that the completed form should be forwarded to. It also offered to contact the resident’s occupational therapist to update them on what action it was taking and asked the resident to contact the Senior Property Manager to let her know if that would assist.
9. With regards to the resident’s request to move, as a shared homeowner, there were options for the resident to sell and move home and it would provide her with information on the process. Its tenancy sustainment team may also be able to support the resident with the next steps she might need to take.
On 1 June 2021, the Senior Property Manager Home Ownership emailed the resident to check she wanted to be referred to the landlord’s tenancy sustainment service. The landlord noted that the resident had said that she could not make a decision on this until the shower was fixed. The Senior Property Manager went on to say that, if the resident would like to go through the tenancy sustainment referral form, to let them know, that the sustainment team may be able to provide the resident with some additional support, but the referral would need to be completed in order to access the service, and they would need the resident’s help to complete this.
In an internal email of 23 June 2023, the Aftercare Manager confirmed that a date for the landlord’s building consultant and the developer to carry out further investigations into the balcony and condensation issues was currently being arranged. The Aftercare Manager said that they were awaiting the outcome of those investigations before repairing the ceiling. The Senior Property Manager provided the resident with an update regarding this on 28 June 2021, in which they advised that the investigations were still being arranged, and that they would have to wait until the outcome of this before they advise on the ceiling repainting. They also said that they had asked for a balcony update and would provide an update in 2 weeks’ time.
On 27 July 2023, this service emailed the landlord, following contact from the resident, asking that the landlord provide a copy of its final response or, to contact the resident to confirm her position within the landlord’s formal complaints process. The landlord responded to say that it had not had any contact from the resident since its previous response.
This service chased the landlord again on 11 August 2021 to ask that it contact the resident to progress her complaint and on 16 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to explain the next stage of the complaints process.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2021. The resident said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because of ‘‘the lack of trust and the ability to help (her) with the problems in the flat that happened before (she) moved in’’. The resident also reported that the front door was not aligned and that there was a gap between the door and top wall because of the movement of the building over the past year. The resident said that her physical and mental health had been significantly affected by the issues in the property and that she was ‘‘on the verge of being hospitalized’’. The resident said that the outcome she was looking for was:
1. For the damp to be fixed, the water ingress was drying out but the treatment was still to be completed.
2. Compensation for damages to her personal belongings because of water and damp damage and for the lack of responsibility taken by the landlord for these issues and it not doing the repairs sooner.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to extend the deadline for its final response to 21 January 2022. The landlord apologised for having to extend the deadline again and explained that this was due to staff absence.
The landlord issued its final response on 14 January 2022, in which it said:
1. With regards to the suspected damp:
  1. Its Head of After Care visited the resident’s home to investigate her concerns of suspected damp in your property. No evidence was found of damp, however there was evidence of condensation in the property.
  2. Following the findings of the inspection, and the findings of further inspections of the building by its building consultant, no building defects had been identified at the property which were a source of cause of damp. The landlord said that it was satisfied on the evidence given there was an issue of condensation in the property and that the resident had been provided with information on how this issue could be managed.
2. With regards to the water ingress drying out and treatment to be completed:
  1. That it had agreed to stain block and repaint the resident’s ceiling and there had been a delay in completing this action. The landlord explained that the works could not be scheduled until further investigations by the its building consultant were carried out and results received. The results were received in November 2021. The landlord acknowledged that this was a long delay and period of uncertainty for the resident and advised that its contractor would be in touch with the resident by 28 January 2022 to book an appointment for these works to be carried out.
  2. As outlined above, the landlord was satisfied there had been delays in carrying out the agreed works to stain block and repaint the ceiling and that as a result of these delays the resident’s request for compensation for delays was appropriate. The landlord offered the resident £150.00, in recognition of the delays suffered.
3. With regards to the refund for damage to personal belongings and carpet damage due to water ingress, the landlord explained that it provided the building insurance for the property but that this insurance did not cover the resident’s personal belongings. The landlord went on to explain that the resident’s claim for damages to her personal belongings should be made via her home contents insurance. However, if she did not have a home contents insurance policy, the landlord said that she could submit a claim to its insurance team for consideration, for which it attached a claim form and provided a contact email.
4. With regards to the front door not being aligned, the landlord confirmed that the inspection carried out by its After Care Manager in May 2021 found there was no issue with alignment. There were settlement cracks which could be rectified by decoration. As minor settlement cracks are not a building defect, redecoration in these circumstances remained the resident’s responsibility.
5. The landlord noted resident’s concerns about water coming in through the lounge, bathroom and also their patio area and that these issues had not previously been inspected. The landlord said that its After Care Manager would contact the resident by 28 January 2022 to arrange a visit to inspect these areas of concern and would confirm next steps with the resident following his visit.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs to the property at the time, and shortly after, she moved in.

The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
However, it is usual for a shared owner to have responsibility for repairs within the demised property. This is confirmed in clause 3.4 of the lease in this case which states that the resident is responsible: to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition (except in respect of damage by risks insured under clause 5.2, which relates to the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it keeps the building insured). The landlord’s responsibility to repair, decorate and renew the structure of the building being confirmed in clause 5.3 of the lease.
It is recognised that the resident’s understanding was that the landlord would responsible for repairs they reported when they moved into the property. However, the sales process requires a potential buyer to obtain appropriate advice about the condition of the property and the conditions of sale. Having proceeded with the sale, the resident therefore accepted the property in its existing condition and their obligations under the lease.
It is noted that the landlord confirmed that it had had a conversation with the resident and her son about the suitability of the property before inviting her to view to ensure it was suitable for her needs. However, it is unclear whether conversations were also had with the resident as to what their responsibilities would be were they to purchase the property. Whilst, as explained above, ultimately it would be the resident’s responsibility to seek appropriate advice about this during the sales process, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review the information it provides prospective shared owners and leaseholders to ensure that those responsibilities are made clear at the earliest opportunity.
Whilst it is recognised that the repairs reported by the resident have been distressing for them, given the terms of their lease, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that they were responsible for the majority of te issues raised including, but not limited to, the towel rail, the rail to her bedroom door, for repairs to the shower divert, the shrinkage cracks, skirting boards, paint marks and chips to the front door.
Nevertheless, the landlord did agree to cover the repairs to the toilet and the toilet seat cover, which it was not obliged to do. These were agreed to by the landlord on 19 May 2021. Having agreed to carry out the works the landlord would be expected to complete these works within a reasonable period of time which it did, having completed them by the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 May 2021, 7 working days later.
When the issue of water settling, potential damp and the balcony were reported to the landlord it was appropriate for it ensure that there are no repairs to the structure of the building, that it would be responsible for, which could be contributing to the issues reported by the resident. In this case the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for its After Care Manager to inspect the property on 26 May 2021.
Following the initial investigated on 26 May 2021, the After Care Manager confirmed that there being no balcony roof was not a defect, as this was part of the design, and that the water settling and black mould in the property was the result of condensation. The After Care Manager also agreed to investigate the discoloration of the fabricated steel to determine if the landlord could claim for this against its building insurance.
In its stage 1 response of 28 May 2021, the landlord advised that it had arranged for a subsequent inspection by its building consultant and developer to carry out further investigations, which it advised it expected to be completed by 30 June 2021. This again was an appropriate step for the landlord to take in order to confirm that the position taken by its After Care Manager was correct.
In its final response of 14 January 2022, the landlord said that following both of these inspections no building defects were found that could be a cause of the damp, that it was satisfied that there was an issue of condensation and that the resident had been provided with information on how this could be managed.
No evidence of either investigation report, which the landlord relied on in its final response, has been seen by this service. This service has also seen no further information regarding the investigation that the After Care Manager said they would carry out with regards to the discoloration of the fabricated steel to the balcony.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to create a record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In this case, the omissions of the reports following the subsequent inspection by the landlord’s building consultant and developer in the evidence provided has resulted in this service being unable to say with any certainty whether the position taken by the landlord in its final response was fair and reasonable. In light this, this Service finds that redress is warranted to the resident for the impact the landlord’s record keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation of her concerns.
The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations relating to this landlord about reviewing its record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around this aspect of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures.
With regards to the damage to the resident’s ceiling as a result of the water ingress. The landlord’s building insurers resolved the issue of the water ingress, however, there remained the issue of making good the ceiling following that ingress. Under the terms of the lease, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident that it would be their responsibility to make good. However, in its stage 1 response, and whilst not being obliged to do so, the landlord agreed to make good, stain block and paint the water mark on the ceiling.
Having agreed to carry out these works to the landlord would be expected to complete these works within a reasonable period of time. The landlord agreed to carry out these works on 28 May 2021, however, by the time of the resident’s escalation request of 17 October 2021, some 5 months later, the resident was still asking for the treatment to be completed. By the time of the landlord’s final response on 14 January 2022, these works remained outstanding, and the landlord advised that its contractor would contact the resident by 28 January 2022 to book an appointment for the works to be completed. It remains unclear when these works were completed. However, even if the works had been completed on 28 January 2022, the resident would have waited 8 months for the works to be completed.
That this was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response in which offered the resident £150 compensation. Whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure to carry out these works in a reasonable period of time, and its offer of compensation is welcomed, the £150 offered was not proportionate to the extent of this failure nor the prolonged distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Given the failures identified above, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation made up of:
1. £300 for the impact its record keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation of her concerns.
2. An additional £150 for the delay in it carrying out the repairs to the resident’s ceiling, bringing the total compensation payable for this specific element of the complaint to £300.
The landlord has also been ordered to:
1. Establish the date the works to the ceiling were completed and to consider whether further compensation might be appropriate were there to have any further unreasonable delays subsequent to 28 January 2022.
2. Provide the resident and this service with a copy of the report from the building consultant that the landlord relied on in its final response in confirming that no building defects were found that could be a cause of the damp. If this report is not available, the landlord has been ordered to contact the resident to see if this issue still persists and if so, the landlord is to arrange a further inspection by its building consultant, the results of which are to be shared with both the resident and this service.
3. Provide the resident and this service with the results of the After Care Managers investigation regarding the discolouration to the fabricated steel.

The resident’s request for compensation for damage to her personal belongings due to water ingress and damp.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it encourages customers to take out contents insurance and have cover in situations where it is not liable, such as damage to personal belongings.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may consider complaints where damage may have been caused by itself or those working on its behalf. The policy also states that there may be circumstances when it will advise the resident to claim on their own contents insurance, and that there may be circumstances when part of a complaint is better dealt with through an insurance claim. In these circumstances the landlord will refer the resident to its insurers to investigate specific insurance claims.
Given that there appears to be no suggestion that the damaged claimed for was caused by the landlord or those working on its behalf, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident, in the first instance, to her own contents insurance with regards to the damage to her personal belongings. This is because in accordance with its compensation policy residents are encouraged to have home and contents insurance to cover their personal items and that it will not compensate for damage to personal items unless the damage has been caused by its actions.
The landlord again acted reasonably in advising the resident that if she did not have her own contents insurance she could submit a claim against its insurance.
Overall the landlord response to the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged personal belongings, was fair and reasonable, in accordance with both its compensation and complaints policy and showed that it was committed to resolving the complaint.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which states that it aims to provide a stage one response within 10 workings and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it is not possible for the landlord to respond within these timescales, the policy states that it will contact the resident and let them know why it is not able to do this and when it will provide the response. The policy goes on to state that this will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and the resident’s agreement.
The resident raised their initial complaint during a telephone call with the landlord on 11 May 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord would be expected to issue its stage 1 response within the 10 working days. However this was not issued until 28 May 2021, 13 working days later.
The landlord’s stage one response covered all the points raised by the resident, including providing her with an insurance form should she wish to make a claim about her health concerns since moving into the property, offering to contact the resident’s occupational therapist and suggesting that its tenancy sustainment team might be able to support the resident with the next steps she might need to take with regards to her request to move. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with clear guidance about what she could do to escalate her complain and stated that it would provide the resident with a further response by the end of June and if at that point the complaint remained unresolved she could then request a review.
The landlord’s Senior Property Manager did contact the resident on 28 June 2021 to provide an update but, despite making reference to this being the update promised in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint, made no further reference to the resident’s complaint nor that she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident then contacted this service on 27 July 2021, following which the landlord was asked to provide the resident with its final response to the complaint. In its response the landlord said that it had not had any contact from the resident since its previous response. However, given the above issues with regards to its advice to the resident about how to escalate her complaint, this was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
The landlord failed to provide the response and as a result this service had to contact it again on 11 August 2021. It was then not until the 16 August 2021 that the landlord contacted the resident and then only to explain the next stage, not to provide its response.
It is noted that the landlord formally recorded the resident as having escalated her complaint on 17 October 2021, however, it then failed to provide its final response until 14 January 2022, some 3 months later, and 6 months after it was asked to do so by this service.
This was an unreasonably long time for the resident to have to wait for its response and as a result caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience and distress.
Given the extent of the landlord’s failures with regards to the escalation of the complaint and the length of the delay in its response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged those failures and apologised to the resident. It is noted that the landlord apologised for having to extend the deadline again and explained that this was due to staff absence, in a separate email on 14 January 2022, however it would have been appropriate for this apology to also have been included in the final response. It is also noted that the email said that the response would be delayed until 21 January 2022 when it was in fact sent out the same day. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its complaint handling failures, which it did not do.
For this reason a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident £200 for its complaint handling failures, and to provide the resident with a further apology for failing to acknowledge the unreasonable delay in it issuing its final response in the response itself.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property at the time, and shortly after, she moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her personal belongings due to water ingress and damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she was responsible for the majority of the repairs reported at the time, and shortly after, she moved in, the landlord failed to provide this service with evidence to support the position it took in its final response regarding the cause of the water settling and damp. There was also an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing the works to the ceiling that it had agreed to do. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge this and offer compensation, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the extent of this failure nor the prolonged distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord advising the resident in the first instance to contact her own contents insurer, and also advising her that if she did not have her own contents insure she could submit a claim against its insurance, was both fair and reasonable, and in accordance with both the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy.
There was a short delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response and in that response the landlord failed to provide the resident with appropriate advice as to how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. There was also a excessive delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, it failing to provide its final response until 3 months after it accepted an escalation request from the resident, and 6 months after it was asked to provide a final response by this service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact its record keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation of her concerns.
  2. An additional £300 for the delay in it carrying out the repairs to the resident’s ceiling, this is inclusive of the £150 previous offered if this has not already been paid.
  3. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Establish the date the works to the ceiling were completed and to consider whether further compensation might be appropriate were there to have any further unreasonable delays after 28 January 2022.
4. Provide the resident and this service with a copy of the report from the building consultant that the landlord relied on in its final response in confirming that no building defects were found that could be a cause of the damp. If this report is not available, the landlord is to contact the resident to see if this issue still persists and if so, to arrange a further inspection by its building consultant, the results of which are to be shared with both the resident and this service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
5. Provide the resident and this service with the results of the After Care Manager’s investigation regarding the discolouration to the fabricated steel. If this is not available the landlord is to advise the resident and this service what steps it intends to take to address this.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review the information it provides prospective shared owners and leaseholders to ensure that those responsibilities are made clear at the earliest opportunity.