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

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202117057)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117057

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

26 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to a manhole cover and toilet.
    2. communication with the resident following flash flooding which caused damage to her property.
    3. response to the resident’s request that it reimburses her for the cost of replacing personal belongings damaged as a result of the flash flooding.
    4. response to the resident’s request for a rent rebate for the period when she was not able to occupy the property following the flood.
    5. response to the resident’s request that the landlord replaces the floor tiling in her property.
    6. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

2.  What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.  After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) and (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c.  The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it reimburses her for the cost of replacing personal belongings damaged as a result of the flash flooding;

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent rebate for the period when she was not able to occupy the property following the flood;
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replaces the floor tiling in her property.

 

4.  Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters 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 investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request that it reimburses her for losses caused as a result of the flooding. This is because it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine causation or liability in negligence, and to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. Should the resident choose to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

 

5. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has not raised a complaint with the landlord about its   decision regarding the rent rebate and the floor tiling. The Ombudsman cannot, therefore, investigate these aspects of the complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.     

 

6. This investigation therefore will be confined to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s:

  1. Handling of repairs to a manhole cover and toilet;
  1. communication with the resident following flash flooding which caused damage to her property;
  1. Complaints handling.

 

 

 

Background and summary of events

Background

7.  The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 2013. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one-bedroom basement flat.

8.  The resident has had historical issues with repairs to her bathroom resulting in an investigation by this Service which was determined in 2019, report reference 201901769. 

9.  The resident’s tenancy agreement provides that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, any installations provided for the landlord for space water heating, and sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, and toilets. The agreement also states that the landlord will insure the structure of the property against loss or damage. This insurance does not cover a resident’s personal possessions and residents are advised to obtain their own contents insurance.

10.  The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as ‘emergency repairs’ or ‘routine repairs’. Emergency repairs are to be undertaken within four hours of being reported by a resident. All other repairs are categorised as routine repairs and are to be completed within 20 working days. 

11.  The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The complaints procedure allows for a resident to respond to a provisional complaint response and for the landlord to consider their representations before issuing a final response.

12. The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture policy allows for compensation to be paid up to a maximum of £250 where there has been a service failure. The policy also states that where major works are necessary and a significant portion of the property is uninhabitable, if suitable accommodation is offered and refused the resident will waive the right to compensation. A referral can be made to a Service Director to consider whether aspects of the policy should be waived on a discretionary case-by-case basis . Where the landlord has failed to meet published timescales for repair, compensation of £10 will be paid up to a maximum of £50. For failing to keep to timescales for response to a complaint the landlord will pay £10.

 

 

Summary of events

13. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 14 June 2021, about the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs to her bathroom that had begun in 2019. She referred specifically to repairs to a manhole cover and re-fixing the toilet.

14. In response to the complaint, the landlord raised a job with its repairs team for a contractor to attend to secure the toilet and to replace and seal the manhole cover in the bathroom. 

15. The landlord issued its stage one response on 29 June 2021, in which it;

  1. Advised that a job had been raised to seal the resident’s manhole cover but after two failed visits the job was closed down on 13 January 2020. Further works had been delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic however it had since arranged for the works to go ahead that week;
  1. Stated that a job had been raised for the installation of the resident’s toilet which had been completed on 13 August 2019. The landlord could not find records of any further reports regarding the toilet so no follow on action had been taken. A new job had been raised to re-fix the toilet;
  2. Acknowledged service failure and offered an apology and £150 in compensation which comprised of £100 for its lack of communication and £50 as a gesture of goodwill.

16. An operative attended to complete the works on 29 June 2021. The resident was unhappy with how the operative spoke to her and asked him to leave before the works could be completed. Conflicting accounts of this discussion have been provided however, it appears that there was a disagreement between resident and contractor over compliance with Covid-19 guidance around face-coverings.

17. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 11 July 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. She stated in her request that she had asked the landlord to reschedule the failed appointment from 29 June 2021 but she had received no response.

18. On 12 July 2021, areas of London were impacted by intense storms which resulted in flash flooding. As a consequence, the public sewer system became overwhelmed and overflowed, affecting many homes and businesses. The resident’s property was one of a large number of the landlord’s properties that were affected. Contaminated water entered the resident’s home through drains, sinks, toilets, and under the front and rear door to the property leaving the property uninhabitable.

19. The landlord co-ordinated an emergency response and arranged to decant affected residents into temporary accommodation until works could be completed to put right the damage caused by the floods. The resident chose not to move into temporary accommodation and informed the landlord that she would be staying with friends and family instead.

20. The landlord notified the resident that the works would be arranged through the landlord’s insurers. The resident was provided with dehumidifiers so that the property could be dried out. In the week following the flooding, a loss adjuster attended the property to assess the scope of the damage.

21. On 19 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email, which she copied to her local MP, requesting an update. She asked that her landlord advise:

  1. When her property would be cleaned and cleared;
  1. When a surveyor would be attending to assess the works that were required;
  2. If she would be compensated for;
    1. Her losses caused by faulty equipment in her property namely the unsealed manhole cover;
    2. the cost of running the dehumidifiers;
  3. If she could have a rent rebate for the period she was unable to occupy the property.

22. On 20 July 2021, the landlord called the resident and notified her that the property would be cleaned on 22 July 2021. She was informed that the insurance company’s surveyor would be inspecting the property on the 10 August 2021. 

23.  On 18 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response following the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated on 11 July 2021. In its response the landlord stated that:

  1. A request had been raised regarding repairs to the manhole cover and contact was made with the resident on 23 June 2021 with attendance on 29 June 2021 after which time the job was closed;
  1. The flooding had affected several properties and the contaminated water would have entered the resident’s property even if the manhole cover had been sealed. As the resident did not have home contents insurance she was directed to apply to the water company’s trust fund for assistance with replacing items that had been damaged by the flood;
  2. The resident’s property had since been sanitised and drying equipment had been provided. The insurance company’s surveyor reported that substantial works would be required to put right the damage. A schedule of works was being prepared and the landlord hoped to provide an update to all affected residents within the next few weeks;
  3. The landlord accepted that it should have managed the situation better and apologised for its service failings. As a result, concerns have been raised with service areas and it has also changed the way its repairs were recorded;
  4. The landlord made a revised compensation offer of £200 in recognition of the service failure which comprised of £100 for its lack of communication, £50 failure to complete repairs within the published timescale and £50 gesture of goodwill.

24. The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said that the stage two response had not taken into account her full complaint and had included items that were not part of her initial complaint. This service has not been provided with a response by the landlord to this email.  

25. The resident contacted the landlord twice in September 2021 to chase the flood repairs. When a response was not forthcoming she contacted her local MP to request that he intervene. The MP wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2021 asking for an update on the outstanding matters. The landlord responded to the  MP on 13 October 2021 to advise that the insurance company was leading on the works, that it had been in regular contact with the resident, and that it was committed to resolving the issues as quickly as possible.

26. The resident telephoned a further three times over the following weeks to chase the repairs. On 8 November 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord again requesting an update. The landlord responded on 15 November 2021 that it had agreed to cover the resident’s costs of running the dehumidifiers and, at the resident’s request, this amount would be credited to her rent account. The landlord provided assurances to the MP that it would endeavour to improve its communication with the resident.

27. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 December 2021 providing a comprehensive response to a number of the issues raised by the resident including an estimate of when works would be completed. In response to the resident’s concerns about communication, the landlord advised that going forward there would be a named person who the resident could contact to report any issues. The landlord also offered to arrange a meeting between the resident, landlord, and contractor.

28. On 18 January 2022 the resident met with the landlord and contractors to discuss the works schedule. As the resident did not want the contractors to have a key to the property, arrangements were agreed between the contractor and the resident about how access to the property would be facilitated each day. On 7 February 2022 the contractors corresponded with the resident directly providing her with a schedule of works. Works commenced on 8 February 2022. 

29. Following the meeting with the contractor, the resident contacted the landlord by email on 19 January 2022, 18 February 2022 and 1 March 2022 with some further queries about the replacement flooring in the property.

30. On 2 March 2022 the landlord received two new complaints from the resident that were sent the same day. This Service has been provided with only one of the complaint forms in which the resident stated that her manhole cover had not been secured and that had the cover been properly installed this would have lessened the volume of flood water entering her property which in turn would have reduced the damage to the property and her belongings. She requested that the landlord replace the furniture and flooring in the property. The second complaint concerned the landlord’s communication with the resident. 

31. The landlord issued its stage one response on 16 March 2022 in which it;

  1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s emails and provided assurances that, going forward, her emails would be responded to within 48 hours;
  1. Advised that the landlord could not replace her personal belongings that had been damaged by the flood. She was signposted again to the water company’s trust fund and the local authority for an application for local support payments;
  2. Had raised a query with the insurers and contractors overseeing the works about the issue she had raised regarding the manhole cover and hoped to respond to her by 18 March 2022;
  3. Confirmed that lessons had been learned with a view to providing a more streamlined customer response when communicating with residents and offered an apology and compensation of £30 for delays and communication issues.

32. The resident had not received a response by 18 March and on 21 March 2022 she requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. She said that she was unhappy that the two separate complaints had been treated as one complaint and that, despite assurance that she would receive a response to her emails within 48 hours, this had not happened. She had not yet had an update regarding the manhole cover.

33. On 28 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident outside of the complaints procedure to inform her that it would only offer her a rent rebate in circumstances where repairs were caused by the landlord’s failings and not, as in this case, where this was as the result of a flood caused by adverse weather conditions and which had affected a large number of properties. The landlord also provided a response in relation to the resident’s queries about the flooring in her property.

34. On 5 May 2022 the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints procedure as follows:

  1. It apologised for its failings regarding communication and advised that this had been addressed with the relevant teams as part of lessons learnt;
  1. It was the landlord’s position that contaminated water would have entered the resident’s property regardless of whether the manhole cover had been sealed as the flood had caused damage to a number of properties. The resident would be provided with an update regarding reinstatement works;
  2. £80 in compensation was offered in recognition of the service issues she had experienced. This comprised of £50 service failure for communication and £30 for delays in responding to her complaint.

35. On 18 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident outside of the complaints procedure providing information about the resident’s flooring. The email also reiterated that the landlord would not refund or waive rent for a period when the resident could not occupy the property in circumstances where the repairs were not due to failings by the landlord and where the resident had refused a decant. 

36. On 19 May 2022, following further representations by the resident, the landlord issued an additional complaint response in which it confirmed that the manhole cover issue had now been resolved as part of the flood repairs. It also stated that the rent rebate did not form part of the resident’s complaint and had been dealt with in separate correspondence. 

37. The resident then referred her complaint to this Service. The resident has informed this Service that she has not returned to the property yet as some repairs remain outstanding. The landlord has advised that the works were completed to the property on 5 August 2022 and they are in contact with the resident regarding a move back to the property.     

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a manhole cover and toilet

38. It is unclear from the records provided by resident and landlord whether repairs to the resident’s toilet had been raised by the resident between 2019 and her initial complaint in June 2021. Therefore no finding has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint. 

39. The records show that repairs to the manhole cover had been raised in December 2019 with a target completion date of January 2020. The landlord’s repair logs also record that a voicemail message had been left with the resident rescheduling the time of an appointment arranged for the 13 January 2020. The resident said she did not receive prior notice of this appointment and as a consequence it did not go ahead as the contractor could not gain access. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident again on 16 January 2020 to rebook the appointment but it did not receive a call back. The works were then closed down. There is no record of the works being raised again before the resident’s initial complaint in June 2021.

40. Following the resident’s complaint an appointment was arranged for 29 June however this appointment did not go ahead following the resident’s disagreement with the contractor. The resident said that she called to rearrange this appointment however, there is no evidence that these works were raised again before 12 July 2021 when the flooding occurred. The repairs were then included with the schedule of works under the insurance claim and were completed in May 2022.

41. Where a landlord has identified that it has a repair responsibility, it is obliged to take all reasonable steps to complete the repair. It would have been appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to have made more than one attempt to contact the resident by different means in order to reschedule the appointment rather than closing down the repair when the resident did not return a telephone call. No evidence has been provided to suggest that this happened.

42. While it is recognised that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to delays to works between January 2020 and June 2021, for some of this period government restrictions had been removed or relaxed allowing for repairs works to be undertaken. Even if there had been further delays caused by a backlog of works for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that an explanation for the delays had been communicated to the resident. Instead, the resident was put to time and trouble in following this up and ultimately having to raise a complaint in order for this matter to be addressed.

43. No progress was made from December 2019 until the resident’s complaint was raised in June 2021, a total of 18 months, which exceeds the landlord’s repair timescales and is evidence of service failure.

44. When the appointment did not go ahead at the resident’s request on 29 June 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s report about the contractors conduct and to have rescheduled the appointment. This did not happen and the repair was then closed and not rescheduled.

45. It should be noted that the bathroom repairs were the subject of an investigation by this Service in 2019 and it is therefore regrettable that these repairs were not prioritised and monitored to completion given the findings in the 2019 report. 

46. Given the extensive repairs required in order to put right the damage caused by the flood, it was reasonable for the manhole cover to be included with the repairs as part of the insurance claim. The delays from 12 July 2021 onwards, therefore, cannot be attributed to the landlord and no service failing has been found for this period. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident during this time was lacking and this is considered further in this report. 

47. The landlord has accepted that it failed to meet its service standards and has offered £200 in compensation, which comprised of £100 for its poor communication with the resident and £50 for repairs delays with an additional £50 gesture of goodwill. It apologised to the resident and  informed her that, in terms of lessons learned, that it had changed the way that its repairs were recorded.

48. While the landlord did take steps to put things right in this instance, in the Ombudsman’s view the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. In particular, the time and trouble the resident was put to in having to chase the landlord for updates, the distress and the uncertainty she experienced because of the lack of progress, particularly given the previous investigation by this Service.  This service considers that an award of £350 in compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

 The landlord’s communication with the resident following flash flooding which caused damage to her property

49. When works are being undertaken involving a large number of properties as part of an insurance claim, delays can be unavoidable given the planning involved. Such delays are largely also outside of the landlord’s control as the works are arranged by the insurance company.

50. The flash flooding was an extreme and unexpected event that caused extensive damage to many properties in the affected areas. The landlord would have had to divert considerable resources to co-ordinating its response to the flood, in order to meet to the immediate needs of its impacted residents including finding temporary accommodation for a large number of households. The Ombudsman recognises the challenges that the landlord had to meet in responding to this emergency.

51. It is noted, however, that the landlord’s communication with the resident during this time was lacking. This was a very upsetting time for the resident. She had lost many of her possessions in the flood and she had to vacate her home at short notice not knowing when she would be able to return. She needed advice and guidance about what to do about her rent, how to cover the costs of drying out the property and when the property would be cleaned, cleared and ready for her to move back into.

52. The evidence does not show that the landlord kept the resident sufficiently updated about the situation. On a number of occasions the resident’s emails and calls were not returned. This Service accepts that the landlord was not able to provide timely responses to some of the resident’s enquiries in the case where it was waiting on information from a third party. However, it is a reasonable expectation that the landlord would provide the resident with regular updates so that she could be confident that her queries were being followed up and that matters were in hand. Effective and regular communication by the landlord would have gone some way to alleviating some of her stress, uncertainty and worry during this difficult time.

53. The landlord did provide a timely response addressing the reimbursement of the resident’s electricity costs, following contact from the MP. It is unfortunate, however, that the resident needed to involve her MP in order to receive a response from the landlord. It is noted that payment of the electricity costs were delayed due to matters that were outside of the landlord’s control, and this was resolved  when the resident agreed that the amount could be credited to her rent account. The resident also advised that she had received support calls from the welfare team in the immediate aftermath of the flooding. 

54. On more than one occasion, the landlord gave assurances that it would respond to the resident by a certain date and then did not do so. For example it agreed to provide a report to the resident regarding the manhole cover by 18 March 2022 but this deadline was not met. The resident made enquiries about her flooring in January 2022 and was informed that she would have a response by the following week but she did not receive a full response until April 2022. These unrealistic deadlines raised the resident’s expectations that matters would be resolved at an earlier date, leading to further frustration and loss of confidence in the service when these deadlines were not met. 

55. Further, some of the resident’s queries related to matters for which there could be no justifiable reason for a delay in responding. For example, there was clear guidance in the landlord’s policies and procedures regarding the resident’s eligibility for rent rebate. In such circumstances a delay of 10 months to respond was unreasonable.

56. The landlord’s letter of 1 December 2021 went some way towards putting things right. It acknowledged that there were shortcomings in its communication with the resident and it provided a detailed update of what had been agreed to date and what would happen going forward. It reassured the resident that lessons had been learned. The landlord arranged for a designated contact person to follow up the resident’s ongoing enquiries with the relevant departments and to then report back to her. It also arranged an appointment with the resident and the contractor to discuss the schedule of works and to make arrangements for the resident to allow access to the property each day. This would have gone some way towards putting the resident’s mind at rest. Ultimately, however, measures put in place to resolve communication issues were not successful as there continued to be lengthy delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s emails.

57. While it is clear that the landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns about communication and had made changes in an effort to improve its service, overall its communication was lacking. It was therefore fair in the circumstances that the landlord should consider redress to put right its service failings. The landlord has offered an amount of £50 compensation for its poor communication. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, this amount does not reflect the detriment to the resident. The resident was left to navigate a very difficult situation with inadequate support from the landlord. As such an award of £250 in compensation is warranted to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling

58. In its complaints responses the landlord apologised for its service failures and attempted to put things right with an offer of redress. The landlord also showed that it was resolution focussed by reviewing the amount of compensation awarded at different stages of the complaints procedure resulting in an increased offer of compensation at stage two. Further the landlord gave assurances that it would liaise with relevant departments to improve service delivery. 

59.  However, there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. In its stage two complaint response dated 18 August 2021, the landlord made reference to events following the flood of 12 July 2021 which did not comprise part of the resident’s original complaint.

60. In March 2022, the resident raised concerns that two separate complaints made on the same date were addressed in a single complaint response without any prior clarification from the landlord that this is what it proposed to do. It is entirely reasonable for the landlord to seek to simplify and streamline its complaints process, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have guided the complaint by clarifying with the resident in its complaint acknowledgement that it sought to combine both complaints in one response. 

61. The landlord’s complaints policy allows for a resident to make further representations following a stage two complaint within 5 working days, allowing the complaint to be reviewed and updated before issuing a final response. There appears to be inconsistency in the landlord’s application of this policy. For example, following the landlord’s stage two response on 18 August 2021, the resident made further representations on the same day but received no response. Following the landlord’s second stage two response dated 5 May 2022, the resident made further representations and a further complaint response was sent on 18 May 2022. The complaints policy should be applied consistently so that residents can feel confident that the procedure is transparent and that complaints are being dealt with fairly. The landlord’s failure to do so would have added to the residents dissatisfaction.    

62. While the landlord has offered redress for delays in its complaint response, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s management of the complaints process was lacking and its application of its complaints procedure was inconsistent with its policy which would have disadvantaged the resident. This Service’s remedies guidance states that further compensation can be paid in instances where compensation was offered, but was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service’s investigation. Therefore a payment of £100 in the circumstances is appropriate to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

63. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of its repairs to the resident’s bathroom, specifically the manhole cover.

64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its communication with the resident following flash flooding which caused damage to her property.

65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

66. Taking into account the delays to non-emergency repairs because of restrictions in place relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was still an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing the repairs to the resident’s manhole cover between December 2019 and July 2021 when the flood occurred. The landlord did not make further arrangements to reschedule missed appointments in January 2020 and it was only after the resident had raised a formal complaint that the appointment was rescheduled in June 2021. The redress offered did not reflect the detriment experienced by the resident. Further delays from July 2021 were attributed to the flood as these repairs were included with the works under the insurance claim.

67. Despite the landlord putting measures in place to address communication issues with the resident, the measures did not prove successful and there were lengthy delays in responding to the resident’s enquiries.

68. While the landlord did apologise and offer redress for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, its complaint responses were lacking in that they addressed some matters that were not raised as part of the complaint and failed to address some matters that had been raised. There were also inconsistencies in its application of its complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

69. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700 comprising:

  1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its  delays to repairs and poor communication;
  1. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.

This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £280. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

70. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide an update within four weeks of the date of this report as to any outstanding flood repairs to the resident’s home and to confirm what actions it has taken to work with the resident so that she can move back into the property.

71. The landlord shall contact this service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

72. It is recommended that the landlord review its communication processes for responding to tenant enquiries and facilitate staff training in this area where necessary.