London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202407290)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407290

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 February 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the impact of repair issues on the health of the resident and his daughter.
2. the landlord’s handling of:
  1. work to the kitchen extractor fan.
  2. leaks, damp, mould and bathroom extractor fan repairs.
  3. window issues.
We have also considered the landlord’s
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Impact of repair issues on the health of the resident and his daughter

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

Kitchen extractor fan

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of work to his kitchen extractor fan. The landlord told the resident in March 2024 that it had raised a work order in respect of this repair. Later, in August 2024, when the landlord responded to a further complaint he made, it noted that the resident had told it of his concerns about how the kitchen extractor fan had been installed. At this time, it directed the resident to raise a fresh complaint in respect of this issue. We have seen no evidence the resident has done so, or that he has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in respect of this.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. We have seen no evidence the resident has raised this matter as a formal complaint or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, while the resident’s concerns are noted, this issue is currently outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of work to his kitchen extractor fan, it would be appropriate for him to raise a formal complaint. If he remains unhappy after exhausting its complaints procedure, he can then bring the complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat where the resident lives with his young daughter.
In March 2023 the resident reported that windows were leaking and that there was damp and mould in the property. The landlord said it had raised the issue with its healthy homes team. On 22 March 2023 the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident who said a contractor had attended but had not identified the source of the leak. At the end of March 2023, the landlord completed an inspection of the property. Its report of this inspection noted:
1. the roof was leaking causing water ingress on external walls in the living room.
2. there was also water ingress into the kitchen and bedroom.
3. the bathroom extractor fan was not working adequately.
4. there were visible signs of mould.
5. windows were in a satisfactory condition.
On 11 April 2023 the resident told the landlord he had been calling for 8 days about the leak. He said that a mould wash had been completed but the situation was still bad. Later in April 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had contacted its contractor about work to resolve the leak. It said that it understood windows may need replacing and that this work was with its planned works team. It said it was happy to raise repairs to the windows in the meantime if the resident wished. The same day the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had chased the leak repair and would look to resolve remedial damage after it had addressed this.
In response to the landlord, the resident said that he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said the leak was not resolved and mould was growing in the property. Later in April 2023 the resident expressed concerns about the condition of the property and the impact on his daughter’s and his own health.
At the beginning of May 2023, the resident told the landlord that contractors had attended, and they had expressed concerns about the damp and mould at the property. He asked that the landlord move him. In response the landlord said the leak had now stopped and its mould team had attended. It said it could not rehouse the resident. It awarded him compensation of £240 made up of:
1. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £80 for time and effort.
3. £60 for failings in its service.
In response the resident refused the landlord’s offer. He said that his flat was not “safe or suitable” due to damp and mould. Later in May 2023 the resident said that the leak had been stopped but mould had come back following a mould wash by the landlord. He asked that the landlord consider temporary accommodation for him and said he had been staying with family.
At the end of May 2023, the landlord noted that it had found water seeping from the flat above into the resident’s living room, bedroom and bathroom. On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor recorded that the leak from above (which was an empty flat) had been repaired but there was damage to the resident’s kitchen ceiling.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. following its attendance on 30 March 2023 it had raised work to overhaul the bathroom extractor fan, and this was completed on 25 May 2023.
2. its building surveyor had attended on 19 May 2023 and had identified a possible leak around a kitchen radiator, causing damp.
3. the building surveyor had raised work to trace a leak affecting the external wall.
4. its contractor subsequently attended and was unable to trace a source of the leak within the resident’s property, but the landlord’s empty homes team had confirmed the leak had now been resolved.
5. its major works team said it was considering work to change the windows in the next financial year, but this timeframe was not guaranteed.
6. the leak had now stopped, and it had arranged to attend again to resolve mould issues the resident had reported.
The landlord said it could see the resident had contacted it several times about the condition of his home. It said it was clear the level of service he received was not of a “high standard”. It offered him increased compensation of £580. This was made up of:
1. £10 for complaint handling.
2. £360 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £60 for failings in its service.
4. £150 for the time and trouble bringing the matter to its attention and allowing access to its contractors.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 22 December 2023. He said:
1. he wanted to reclaim rent he had paid for the period between March and October 2023.
2. he had needed to send his daughter to live elsewhere, and he had stayed away from the property himself as he considered it was putting his health at risk.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 December 2023. It said the resident was responsible for paying rent unless it had agreed the property was uninhabitable. It said that:
1. damp and mould had been cleared by its contractors and it had also provided the resident with decorating vouchers.
2. there was no indication from its records that the property was uninhabitable.
3. as the resident had moved out of his own accord, it would not reimburse rent.
In early January 2024 the resident told the landlord that mould washes had been completed several times, but he did not consider this was a “repair”, only a “minor remedy”. In response the landlord said it had escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the process. In March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had identified there were a number of maintenance issues at the resident’s property in 2023, the main issue being a leak from the property above. It said:
1. its repairs team had scheduled a number of works to the resident’s property, and he was informed about these.
2. its surveyor had not considered the property to be uninhabitable.
3. a refund of rent was not possible, but it offered him £500 for stress and inconvenience. This was in addition to the previous compensation awarded in June 2023.
In response the resident told the landlord that there was new dampness and leaks affecting the property. He also said that every contractor sent by the landlord had told him the property needed new windows. On 14 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. its contractor had previously attended to complete work to the windows
2. a supervisor for the landlord had attended and had confirmed the leak from the property above had been repaired.
3. it had now raised repairs to fix a cracked windowpane the resident had reported.
4. its contractor would attend to treat mould the resident had reported in a cupboard above his boiler.
The landlord said it would not be offering rent reimbursement. However, it said that it would pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced and for failings in its service around the repairs. It offered him compensation of £1,190. This was made up of £350 for failure to deliver repairs, £800 for distress and inconvenience and £40 for its late stage 2 complaint response. This replaced the offer of £500 made in January 2024.
In April 2024 the landlord completed a further inspection of the resident’s property. This noted:
1. there were no roof issues.
2. there was a crack in the bedroom window.
3. it had completed a mould treatment that day in the cupboard above the boiler.
Following a complaint by the resident in May 2024, the landlord provided a further stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2024. It noted this was in respect of a complaint he had made about damp and mould in a kitchen cupboard, window renewal and a crack in the windowpane. It said:
1. damp and mould in the boiler cupboard had been addressed under the resident’s previous complaint.
2. it was the resident’s responsibility to fix a cracked windowpane, according to its repairs and responsibilities handbook, but it was unclear if this had been communicated to him.
3. several operatives had attended to inspect windows, and it acknowledged the inconvenience this had caused to the resident.
4. windows were due for renewal, and it planned to start this work in 2025.
The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £550, made up of:
1. £200 for failings in delivery of repairs and several appointments in respect of windows.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience and the miscommunication in respect of the cracked windowpane, and the resident’s concern that the window was unable to fully open due to a kitchen cabinet.
3. £50 for the late stage 1 complaint response.
On 20 August 2024 the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He expressed dissatisfaction with the number of repair appointments and asked again that the landlord reimburse his rent for the period between March and October 2023. The landlord provided a further stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2024. It said:
1. its contractor had previously attended regarding damp and mould issues.
2. it considered the property was habitable so no compensation or rent adjustment was due in respect of this.
3. it had reviewed the £550 previously awarded and it considered no further compensation was due.
In subsequent correspondence the landlord noted that its head of surveying had attended the resident’s property on 17 October 2024, along with a plumber, and had found no further leaks within the property. It said it had also found no further leaks from the property above.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. Its damp and mould policy outlines its approach to managing and responding to reports of damp and mould. It says it will:
1. take responsibility for identifying, investigating and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can.
2. attend to assess a property within 20 working days, following a report of damp and mould.
3. keep residents informed of its actions and communicate on a regular basis.
4. if it needs to rehouse a resident to allow work to be completed, it will follow its allocations and lettings policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the landlord’s approach to compensation claims and awards. It says that it can award discretionary compensation when its mistakes or failure causes the resident distress and inconvenience and/or they need to spend unnecessary time and effort to get the landlord to put things right.
The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Leaks, damp, mould and bathroom extractor fan repairs

Following the resident’s report of damp and mould issues in mid-March 2023, the landlord took appropriate and timely action to inspect his concerns. It attended at the end of March 2023 and recorded repairs were needed due to water ingress on external walls of the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. Later, at the beginning of April 2023, the landlord recorded that its contractor had attended and considered issues may be caused by a burst pipe. But it provided no clear communication to the resident about what it was doing to resolve issues. It was not until the resident chased the landlord on 11 April 2023 that it updated him about this. That it did not do so earlier was a failing. Setting out clearly from the outset what action it would be taking would have provided reassurance to the resident that repair issues were being addressed.
When it responded to the resident’s complaint on 18 April 2023 the landlord said that leak issues were from a neighbouring property. It said that while it could not discuss this repair with the resident, it would chase it up. Following this, on 3 May 2023 it told the resident that the leak from the neighbouring property was resolved. The resident confirmed this in correspondence he sent it on 7 May 2023. However, he said at this time that mould had returned despite a mould wash by the landlord 4 weeks before.
The landlord’s repair record keeping was inadequate. While it noted in early–May 2023 that the leak from the property above had been resolved, it did not record this in repair records. It is possible repairs for this were recorded under the neighbouring property. However, given that the leak was affecting the resident’s property the landlord should have recorded information about any steps taken to investigate and resolve this leak against the resident’s records too.
Its inspection on 30 March 2023 had noted the roof was “leaking excessively” and that there was a possible blocked drain. The landlord raised a work order in respect of this on 20 April 2023 and told the resident it had done so. But it later noted in its stage 2 complaint response that this repair had been cancelled following a further inspection by its surveyor on 19 May 2023. It said the surveyor had established that the water ingress was being caused by an internal leak. However, the landlord failed to appropriately detail this in repair records. Instead, it noted this work was “finished” on 23 June 2023. This inaccurately reflected what action had been taken. The landlord should have clearly recorded that a subsequent inspection had found this work was not needed. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord outlined in its stage 2 response of June 2023 that its building surveyor had attended the property on 19 May 2023 in response to the resident’s ongoing complaint. However, while the resident has not disputed this attendance, the landlord did not make adequate record of this inspection of the property. Repair records note that a full management survey of the property had been raised on 19 May 2023, but it detailed little of what had been found. For instance, it made no record of the surveyor’s conclusion that water ingress was due to internal issues. That was a further record keeping failing.
Repair records show that, following the surveyor’s visit, further work was raised and completed between May and August 2023 to investigate a possible leak around the kitchen radiator, hack back and repair damaged plaster and address mould. However, the landlord did not ensure that it appropriately communicated with the resident during this time about the progress of work. It should reasonably have done so in line with its repairs policy. This sets out that the landlord will keep residents informed about repairs and communicate on a regular basis.
The resident contacted the landlord at the beginning of July 2023 asking that it complete work as soon as possible to address the damp and mould issues. But there is no evidence it responded to him at this time. The landlord later said that a surveyor had inspected the resident’s property again in August 2023 and had raised further work orders. But, while repair records show that a further work order was raised on 21 August 2023, there is no record of what was found during the surveyor’s visit. In subsequent records the landlord’s surveyor noted they had attended the property on 17 August 2023 and had given the resident a decorating allowance. But the landlord should have recorded full details of this visit.
When we asked for information about the decorating vouchers provided to the resident, the landlord was unable to provide this. The resident subsequently told us the landlord’s surveyor had given him £400 vouchers at this time. The resident told us that he completed decorating, but he was unhappy about this as he did not feel he was given a choice by the landlord, as it did not offer to complete decorating itself. He said he had ongoing health issues at this time and was looking after his young daughter. We have seen no evidence the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about completing this work himself. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered to complete the work as an alternative to the decorating vouchers. That it cannot demonstrate it did so is a failing.
After the surveyor’s attendance in August 2023 the landlord noted in repair records that it had raised “various repairs”. It recorded these as completed on 19 September 2023. However, this record provides insufficient detail about what repairs had been completed. The landlord should reasonably have made clear records of its inspection of August 2023, and of what further actions and repairs had been undertaken following this. Doing so would have allowed it to fully demonstrate how it had responded to any outstanding repair issues.
The resident also told the landlord at the end of April 2023 of his concern about remaining in the property, and the impact on his and his daughter’s health. He said he had been looking for alternative places to stay. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was inadequate. It told him in emails in early May 2023 that it would not be able to move him due to “home shortages”. While we acknowledge what the resident has said about his concerns about the condition of the property, we have seen no evidence that any part of the property was found to be uninhabitable during this time. But the landlord should reasonably have attended to inspect the resident’s concerns about remaining in the property. Doing so would have provided him with some reassurance around this, given his ongoing concerns about the impact on his household’s health.
We have seen evidence of poor co-ordination and planning of work to resolve the damp and mould issues the resident reported in March 2023. This contributed to prolonging of repairs, which were not completed until 19 September 2023. There was also inadequate communication with the resident during this time about the progress of repair work.
In March 2024, during his complaint, the resident raised concerns about ongoing damp issues within his property. At this time the landlord took action to raise a further inspection and work to his property. This inspection took place approximately 7 weeks later, which is outside the landlord’s 20 working day target timeframe for responding to such reports. That was a failing. We note the subsequent inspection of 26 April 2024 detailed a mould treatment was applied in the property.

Bathroom extractor fan

After the landlord’s contractor attended on 30 March 2023 it noted that the bathroom extractor fan was providing insufficient suction, causing condensation and mould. Subsequently, on 20 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident notifying him of an appointment on 25 May 2023 to complete work to the bathroom extractor. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise this work earlier. In line with its repairs policy the resident could expect routine repair work to be completed within 25 calendar days. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord said in its subsequent stage 2 complaint response of June 2023 that work had been completed on 25 May 2023 to overhaul the bathroom extractor fan and leave it in full working order. But there is no detail of this work within repair records we have seen. While the resident has not disputed that this work was undertaken, the landlord should have ensured that it made and stored appropriate record of all work completed. This would have allowed it to demonstrate how it had acted to resolve repair issues, in line with its obligations. That it did not do so is a record keeping failing.
As noted earlier, the landlord did not make adequate records of its surveyor’s attendance in August 2023. However, following that visit the landlord told the resident it had raised further work to replace the bathroom extractor fan. Records of this work note that the contractor had attended to replace the bathroom extractor on 20 September 2023. While the work was completed slightly outside its target timescales for routine repairs, the landlord communicated with the resident about this work and completed and it was completed approximately 2 weeks later.

Window issues

When reporting damp and mould issues in March 2023 the resident told the landlord of his concerns that windows were leaking. Records show the landlord’s contractor attended on 22 March 2023 and found that the leak was not from the windows. Subsequently, the inspection at the end of March 2023 found the windows to be in a “satisfactory condition”.
Following this the resident raised concerns during his complaint about the windows being singled-glazed, and in need of replacement. The landlord addressed this concern in its stage 2 complaint response of 2 June 2023. It said its major works team was considering this work for the next financial year, but that this timeframe was not guaranteed. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the windows and his desire for the landlord to replace these as soon as possible. However, given this is major works, the landlord would reasonably need to plan and budget for it. The information it provided to him, that this work was with its major works team for planning, was reasonable. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to any concerns the resident raised, and complete necessary window repairs for which it was responsible. We note the landlord told the resident in April 2023 that it would be happy to raise interim repairs, and that it subsequently undertook work to overhaul windows in August 2023. That was reasonable.
Subsequently, during complaint correspondence with the landlord in March 2024 the resident told it of a crack in one of his windowpanes. The landlord later told the resident that it had raised this repair. However, it cancelled this repair in July 2024, noting it had been raised in error. But there is no evidence it appropriately communicated this to the resident. That was a failing. Later, in August 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding work to repair his window. At this time, it said the repair of the cracked windowpane was the resident’s responsibility in line with its repairs and responsibilities handbook. The landlord should reasonably have advised the resident of this at an earlier stage. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for its miscommunication around this.
In January 2025 the resident told us that the landlord had begun work to replace windows within his block. We have recommended that the landlord provide information to the resident about when work to his property will be complete, if it has not done so already. The resident also told us that he considered the crack in his windowpane may have been caused by subsidence or damp and mould. We note work to replace the windows appears to have started. However, we have recommended that, if that is not the case, the landlord should contact the resident to review his concern about the cause of the crack in the windowpane. It should then consider whether it is appropriate for it to undertake a repair to this.

Compensation awarded by the landlord

In the course of reviewing the resident’s complaints about the damp and mould issues, bathroom extractor fan and window concerns, the landlord has awarded him compensation amounting to £2,220. The resident has said that repair issues, and time and trouble he has spent resolving these have had an impact on his life and his ability to work. We have identified a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs and its communication with the resident during this time, particularly between March and October 2023.
We do not doubt that the landlord’s failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble over a prolonged period. We have considered all the circumstances of the case. We have also referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out a range of financial remedies, depending on the failings and the degree of impact on the resident. We consider the award made by the landlord provides reasonable redress in recognition of the impact of its failings. It follows that we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord.
We note the resident’s concerns that the landlord delayed in paying him compensation it had awarded in March 2024. After the resident made contact about this in May 2024, it apologised for this delay and arranged to make the payment by bank transfer. That was appropriate.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was timely. He had raised concerns on 11 April 2023, and it provided its response on 18 April 2023. It also provided him with appropriate information about steps it was taking to resolve issues. However, during correspondence at this time, the resident raised concerns about remaining in the property. As noted earlier, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange to inspect the resident’s concerns about this. That it did not do so was a failing.
The resident requested escalation of this complaint on 18 April 2023. However, the landlord did not do so until 4 May 2023. We acknowledge that in the intervening period, it reviewed issues again and offered the resident compensation. But this should not have delayed it progressing the resident’s complaint to the next stage. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 June 2023 appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 27 December 2023 was also timely. However, given that the resident had raised concerns of ongoing issues at his property the landlord should reasonably have arranged to inspect these. That it did not do so was a failing.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 5 January 2024, but the landlord did not provide its response until 14 March 2024. That was more than a month outside its target timeframe. That the landlord did not agree an extension with the resident in advance was contrary to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and its own policy. It should reasonably have done so. But we note that it was in contact with the resident about his complaint to discuss the level of compensation he was seeking and to arrange an inspection of his property. Its eventual stage 2 complaint response also acknowledged the delay and awarded compensation of £40 for this. That was appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a further complaint on 28 May 2024. However, the landlord did not provide its response until 19 August 2024. That was more than 2 months outside its target timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its eventual stage 1 response and awarded the resident £50. However, it should reasonably have agreed an extension in advance, and explicitly apologised for the delayed response. That it did not do so was a failing.
While the resident requested escalation of his complaint on 20 August 2024 the landlord did not provide its response until 11 October 2024. That was more than 3 weeks outside its target response time. The landlord should reasonably have acknowledged and apologised for this delay. That it did not do so was a failing.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £100 in recognition of delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have identified other failings in its complaint handling, such as its failing to arrange an inspection of the resident’s concerns about remaining in the property. However, the amount already awarded by the landlord in respect of its handling of leaks, damp and mould issues adequately compensates the resident for this.
While we do not consider further redress is due to the resident, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because of its failure to acknowledge and apologise for its delayed stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2024. We have ordered that it do so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme the complaint about the impact of repair issues on the health of the resident and his daughter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about work to the kitchen extractor fan is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of:
1. leaks, damp, mould and bathroom extractor fan repairs.
2. window issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should write to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should consider record keeping failings identified in this report and review whether it now has adequate processes and guidance in place to avoid these failings being repeated.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. provide the resident with information about how he can make a personal injury claim to its insurer, if it has not already done so.
2. provide information to the resident about when work to replace his windows is due to be completed, if it has not done so already.
3. contact the resident to review his concern about the cause of the crack in the windowpane. It should then consider whether it is appropriate for it to undertake a repair to this, subject to the progress of the window replacement work.