At Wealden District Council, we are committed to providing high-quality services and maintaining strong, trust-based relationships with our residents and customers. We recognise that, despite our best efforts, things may occasionally go wrong. When this happens, we believe in putting things right as quickly and fairly as possible. An important part of this is acknowledging where we have not met the standards our residents are entitled to expect and, where appropriate, offering compensation or other forms of recompense to remedy the impact.
This Policy sets out our approach to making fair and proportionate redress when we have failed to deliver a service, when our actions have caused inconvenience, distress or harm, or when a financial loss has occurred as a result of our actions or omissions. It applies to both formal complaints and other situations where a service failure is identified.
The policy reflects our commitment to the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. It has been developed in accordance with both the Housing Ombudsman’s (HOS) Complaint Handling Code and Local Government and Social Care (LGSCO) Complaint Handling Code and takes into account relevant guidance, including the Ombudsman’s own approach to assessing
compensation.
We understand that compensation can take different forms – including financial payment, service-based gestures (such as remedial works or discretionary services), or formal apologies. The form and level of recompense will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be proportionate to the circumstances and impact on the individual.
Appendix A provides details of the statutory compensation payments that we as a landlord are legally required to make under housing legislation. These payments are mandatory and the amount/s payable will depend upon the individual households circumstance.
For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:
Compensation / Recompense – A remedy offered to a resident or service user when the organisation has failed to meet its obligations. This may include financial payments, practical actions, or other remedies to acknowledge service failure, inconvenience, or loss.
Complaint – An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual service user or group of users.
Discretionary Payment – A non-statutory payment made by the organisation as a goodwill gesture, usually where distress, inconvenience or time and trouble has been caused, even where no direct financial loss has occurred.
Service Failure – A situation where the organisation has not delivered a service to the expected standard, has failed to act in line with policy or procedure, or has breached its contractual, regulatory or legal obligations.
Financial Loss – Actual, evidenced monetary loss suffered by a resident or service user as a direct result of the organisation’s actions or omissions. This may include costs for temporary accommodation, damage to personal belongings, or expenses incurred due to missed appointments.
Maladministration – Faulty, misleading, or inefficient administration that results in unfair treatment, disadvantage, or injustice to the individual. This can include avoidable delay, poor communication, failure to follow procedure, or failure to take proper action.
Mitigating Factors – circumstances or considerations that may reduce the level of remedy or compensation offered in response to a complaint or service failure. These may include actions taken by the service user that contributed to the issue, delays caused by the resident in engaging with the resolution process, or steps already taken by the landlord or third parties that have helped to resolve or minimise the impact of the problem.
Tenant / Resident / Service User / Individual – Any individual who receives a service from the organisation. This includes tenants, leaseholders, shared owners, housing applicants, and users of council services.
Redress – The act of putting something right. In this context, redress may include compensation, a formal apology, completing outstanding actions, or other practical steps to address the impact of service failure.
Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) – An independent body that investigates complaints and disputes relating to social housing providers in England. The Housing Ombudsman promotes fair complaint resolution and publishes guidance, including the Complaint Handling Code.
Complaint Handling Code – The framework set by the Housing Ombudsman that outlines good practice in complaint handling for landlords, including expectations for timely resolution, learning, and fair redress.
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) – An independent body that investigates complaints about councils and adult social care providers in England. The LGSCO considers complaints relating to housing allocations, homelessness, adaptations, and other non-landlord services provided by local authorities.
Energy Ombudsman – The Energy Ombudsman is a service designed to assist consumers who have unresolved issues with their energy suppliers, including problems with billing, service quality, and other disputes.
This policy applies to all services delivered by Wealden District Council where there is a duty to provide a reasonable standard of service and where a failure to meet that duty may result in the need to offer recompense.
This policy does not cover:
• any matter settled via an insurance claim;
• any settlement agreed via court proceedings;
• where there is a specific statutory process of remedy open to the complainant, such as the parking appeals process;
Exceptions to these circumstances:
• we may pay compensation to settle a claim where it is cost-effective for the council to do so
• A complaint remedy or financial compensation payment would be ex gratia and would not represent an admission of liability. It is also important to note that compensation will not be paid for matters that fall outside the remit of
the Council, relate to third-party agencies over which we have no control or
has been caused by the actions of the complainant.
This policy is underpinned by the following key principles, which reflects the
Councils commitment to fair, timely, and proportionate resolution of complaints
and service failures:
a. Fairness
We will assess all cases will be assessed on their individual circumstances and offer recompense that is reasonable and proportionate to the impact experienced. We will take into account the nature and severity of the failure, the duration of any inconvenience or distress caused, and the resident’s or service user’s individual circumstances.
b. Accountability
We take responsibility for our actions and are committed to putting things right when we have failed to meet our obligations. Where compensation or other remedies are appropriate, they will be offered promptly and in line with this policy. We will also ensure that learning from such cases informs service improvement.
c. Transparency
We will clearly explain the reasons for any compensation or recompense decisions, including what has been awarded and why. If compensation is refused or a lower amount is offered than requested, we will provide a clear justification in writing.
d. Consistency
We will ensure that decisions relating to compensation are applied consistently across the organisation in accordance with the HOS and/or LGSCO guidance.
e. Timeliness
We will aim to consider and respond to compensation matters promptly, in line with complaint handling timeframes or as soon as the issue is identified. Unnecessary delays will be avoided, and residents will be kept informed throughout the process.
f. Proportionality
We will ensure that any redress offered is proportionate to the circumstances. Compensation is not intended to be punitive or excessive but to acknowledge the impact of our failure and to provide a fair and reasonable remedy.
g. Alignment with Ombudsman Guidance
Our approach to compensation reflects the guidance and expectations set out by both the HOS and the LGSCO. We will take into account Ombudsman decisions and learning from previous cases to guide our responses and continuously improve our approach.
h. Customer / Resident-Centred
We will always consider the individual’s perspective and experience. Wherever possible, we will engage in dialogue to understand the impact and agree on a resolution that best meets their needs, which may include alternatives to financial compensation.
Compensation or recompense may take various forms depending on the nature of the service failure, its impact on the individual, and what is most appropriate to put things right. The following are the main types of recompense that may be offered:
• Apologising;
• Acknowledging where things have gone wrong;
• Providing an explanation, assistance or reasons;
• Taking action if there has been delay;
• Reconsidering or changing a decision;
• Amending a record or adding a correction or addendum;
• Providing a financial remedy;
• Changing policies, procedures or practices.
Any remedy offered will reflect the impact on the individual as a result of any fault identified and will take into account of the good practice guides issued by the Ombudsman when deciding on appropriate remedies.
The remedy offer will clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the individual where appropriate. Any remedy proposed should be followed through to completion.
If a proposed remedy cannot be delivered, the individual will be informed of the reasons for this, provided with details of any alternative remedy and reminded of their right to complain to the Ombudsman.
We also consider any extent to which the individual’s actions may have contributed to the situation in which they found themselves, in other words whether they exacerbated or failed to minimise the impact. Equally, the individual may have been proactive in seeking to minimise the impact of the situation on them. All these factors may mitigate or minimise the level of remedy.
Examples of when the resident’s own actions mitigate the extent of the compensation being considered might include:
• failure to communicate clearly with us;
• failure to bring individual matters to our attention within reasonable timeframe;
• refusing help to make coherent complaint;
• failing to respond to contact from us;
• as a tenant, repeatedly refusing to allow us access to inspect the property and assess the extent of works needed (where relevant); and
• pursuing a complaint in an unreasonable or excessive way
There are three main types of compensation payments:
• Statutory Compensation (mandatory): these payments must be made by the Council as required by the Housing Regulator, and there is no discretion over the amount to be awarded. Examples include home loss and qualifying improvements under the Right to Repair scheme.
• Quantifiable Loss Payments: these payments are made where a service failure has resulted in a direct and measurable loss to the resident and a payment is given to offset such losses. Examples may include increased heating bills due to disrepair, having to pay for alternative accommodation or paying for cleaning or repairs caused by the Council not meeting its obligations.
• Discretionary Payments: these are payments the Council chooses to make,
even though it is not required to by law. They are offered to acknowledge
inconvenience, distress, time and trouble or poor service experienced by the
resident.
In determining whether such a payment is appropriate, we will consider the circumstances of the case in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedy Guidance and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. These frameworks help ensure that any payment is proportionate, consistent, and reflective of the impact on the individual, supporting a fair resolution where our service has fallen short.
The decision-making process will consider the nature of the service failure, the impact on the resident or service user, and the organisation’s responsibilities under relevant policies, legislation, and regulatory frameworks.
Key Assessment Criteria
Each case will be considered individually, but the following factors will be considered when determining whether compensation is appropriate, and what, if any, form or level of recompense is fair and proportionate:
Nature and seriousness of the service failure – Including the type of service affected and whether it was a one-off or repeated issue.
Duration of the issue or failure – The length of time the resident or service user was affected and whether the matter was resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
Impact on the resident or service user – Including distress, inconvenience, disruption to daily life, reputational damage, or missed opportunities. Personal circumstances, such as vulnerabilities or additional needs, will also be considered.
Effort required to resolve the issue – Including how much time and trouble the individual had to go to in order to have their concerns heard or their issue resolved.
Evidence of financial loss – Where a specific financial loss is claimed, evidence will be required (e.g. receipts, photographs, bank statements). We will assess whether the loss was directly caused by our actions or failure to act.
Contributory factors – Where the individuals own actions or inactions have contributed to the problem or delayed resolution, this will be taken into account when assessing any award.
Previous complaints or history – If the individual has experienced similar service failures before, this may increase the severity of impact and will be considered in determining redress.
Legal or Ombudsman findings – Any determinations or recommendations made by the HOS or LGSCO will be implemented in full and may also inform decisions in similar cases.
We are committed to ensuring that decisions regarding compensation and other forms of redress are fair, reasonable, and clearly explained. However, we recognise that residents and service users may not always agree with the outcome or remedy offered. This section sets out how individuals can request a review or appeal a decision, and how we will handle those requests.
Requesting a Review
If an individual is dissatisfied with a remedy decision – whether because no
compensation was offered, or because the amount or form of redress is
considered insufficient – they may request a review by contacting us within 10
working days of receiving the decision.
The request should set out:
• The reasons why the individual believes the decision is incorrect or unfair.
• Any further information or evidence that was not previously considered.
• What outcome they are seeking.
We will acknowledge the request and confirm whether a review will be carried out.
Reviews will be undertaken by a senior officer who was not involved in the original decision, to ensure objectivity and fairness. The reviewer will reassess the case based on the original evidence, any new information provided, and the principles and criteria set out in this policy.
The outcome of the review will be communicated in writing within 20 working days, unless a longer timeframe is required due to the complexity of the case (in which case the individual be informed of the delay and expected timeline.
The review decision is final within the Council’s internal procedures. However, if the individual remains dissatisfied, they may escalate their concerns to the relevant Ombudsman.
We are committed to learning from our mistakes and using complaints and remedy cases as opportunities to improve the quality, reliability, and fairness of the services we provide.
Remedies are not just a remedy for individual service failures – it is also a valuable indicator of where our processes, systems, or behaviours may need to change. By embedding a culture of continuous improvement, we aim to reduce repeat failings, prevent harm, and strengthen trust with our residents and service users.
All cases that result in compensation or other forms of redress will be reviewed to identify the root cause and assess whether there are wider implications for service delivery. This may include:
– Reviewing whether policies or procedures were followed;
– Identifying gaps in staff training or awareness;
– Examining resourcing or performance issues; and
– Analysing whether similar complaints have occurred across the service.
Service Improvements and Action Plans
Service areas are expected to take ownership of issues that result in compensation and implement appropriate corrective actions. These may include:
– Updating procedures or guidance;
– Introducing new training or refresher sessions;
– Improving communication with residents; or
– Strengthening case management or monitoring.
Sharing Learning
Learning from compensation and complaint cases will be shared across teams and departments through:
– Case studies and anonymised summaries;
– Internal briefings and team meetings; and
– Inclusion in quarterly and annual complaints reports
Effective governance and oversight are essential to ensuring that compensation and recompense are applied fairly, consistently, and in line with both internal standards and external regulatory expectations. This section outlines how we will monitor, report, and review the use of this policy.
The overall responsibility for the implementation and oversight of this policy lies with the Information Governance Manager.
A central log of all compensation payments and decisions will be maintained, including the nature of the service failure, the type and amount of recompense offered, and the rationale for each decision.
We will regularly monitor compensation decisions to ensure consistency and fairness across teams and services. Monitoring activity will include:
• Monitoring of compensation cases by the Information Governance Team.
• Analysis of compensation trends to identify repeat service failures or
emerging risks.
• Monitoring of the timeliness of compensation offers and reviews.
Where patterns of service failure or high volumes of redress are identified, this will be escalated to the relevant service leads for action planning and service improvement.
Compensation data and trends will be reported as part of our regular complaints performance reporting, including:
• Internal reporting to CMT and Member responsible for Complaints.
• Annual reporting to Cabinet and Housing Board.
o Public reporting, where required, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, including summary data in the Annual Complaints Report.
This policy will be reviewed at least every two years, or sooner if:
• There are significant changes to legislation, regulation, or guidance.
• Internal monitoring identifies inconsistencies or issues in policy application
• Feedback from residents, complaints data, or audit findings suggest improvements are needed.