Hyde Housing Association Limited (202119260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119260

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 December 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. Reports of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 5 July 1999. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system.

Scope of investigation

This Service has discretion to investigate matters which pre-date the complaint by more than 6 months. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its failings in addressing the repair issues since December 2020. It is therefore appropriate for this adjudication to include the actions taken by the landlord from December 2020 up to the date of its final response in October 2022. If the resident remains unhappy with events which took place after October 2022, it is open for him to raise a new complaint directly with the landlord.
The resident said that the landlord’s delay in resolving the leak caused him to hurt his back from emptying heavy buckets of water. Additionally, he said that dirty water leaking from the flat above was unhygienic and the resident had throat problems. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, this Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Within the resident’s communication with this Service after the landlord’s stage 2 response, he said insects had invaded his flat due to dirty water entering his property from the flat above. Additionally, he referenced personal items that had been damaged by the leaks. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to investigate and respond to these concerns.

Relevant policies, obligations, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process (dated January 2021) with an optional informal stage prior to stage 1. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires longer at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and may take an additional 10 working days to respond.
Within the landlord’s complaint process, it states, “our complaint response can include follow-on actions we commit to take in a reasonable period beyond the ten days we set out to provide our decision. These commitments will be scheduled in the most helpful way which gives a reasonable amount of time for successful completion. Proposed actions, timescales and responsible people will be set out in our complaint response.”
The landlord defines compensation as, “a payment, either obligatory or discretionary, in recognition of loss suffered by a customer. There is no automatic trigger for a compensation payment and each case will be considered on its merits.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure (dated August 2020) states emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours, and the property made safe within 24 hours. An ‘anytime repair’ will be completed within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedure.
The landlord has a commitment to identify repairs which are the resident’s responsibility and recharge repairs where appropriate. A copy of the landlord’s recharge repairs policy has not been provided.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs”. There is a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.

Summary of events

The resident said he reported a leak into his kitchen from the flat above in December 2020. The leak caused his electricity to cut out. An emergency appointment was attended to. A few days later, he explained the leak also knocked out the electricity in his toilet.
The landlord referenced further reports of a leak in April 2021 and October 2021. The resident also said he reported a leak from above in September 2021.
The resident raised a complaint via the landlord’s form on 19 November 2021. He said he had asked the landlord many times to fix the problem over the past 12 months. Additionally, he said he had written to it on 27 October 2021 but did not receive a response.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 December 2021 as he had not received a complaint response. We contacted the landlord on the same day, asking it to respond directly to its resident.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 7 January 2022. It called the resident to discuss his complaint on 11 January 2022. The resident asked the landlord to communicate in writing.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord extended the complaint response deadline to 8 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 February 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
2. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the service he had received.
3. The resident reported a leak into his home in December 2020. An emergency appointment was attended to turn off a light as a leak was affecting the electric. No investigations into the leak were made at this time.
4. It returned in January 2021 to fix the light.
5. On 15 April 2021, the resident reported a further leak. No leak was found when an operative attended.
6. On 8 October 2021, the resident reported the leak from the flat above was affecting his hallway, kitchen, and toilet. The landlord said it tried to investigate the upstairs flat but was unable to gain access.
7. When its contractor attended the flat upstairs, it asked the occupant to recall their own plumber to fix the leak, as the landlord was not able to repair an occupant’s own work. It was evident changes had been made to the bathroom of the upstairs flat.
8. As part of the complaint investigation, it asked its operative to attend the upstairs flat to further investigate. It attended on 25 January 2022, lifted the ceramic tiles, and completed a repair.
9. It asked the resident to confirm whether the leak was now resolved.
10. It awarded £200 compensation to recognise the time the resident had the leak issue and the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident said he wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2022. He followed up with an email dated 5 April 2022. He asked why his complaint was “partially upheld” and said:
1. He asked for a copy of the operative’s report regarding the repairs above. The landlord told him to obtain this from the contractor, but the contractor said only the landlord could provide this.
2. There were direct holes into his lighting system from the upstairs property. He wanted the landlord to ensure the upstairs resident was available at the same time repair appointments were made for the resident’s home.
3. He still had intermittent leaks in the toilet.
The resident communicated with this Service on 3 May 2022. He said he contacted the landlord about a reoccurring leak on 25 April 2022, 29 April 2022, 30 April 2022, 1 May 2022, and 2 May 2022 with no action from the landlord. We chased the landlord and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The resident contacted us again on 11 July 2022. He said water had leaked into his flat for months and on 4 July 2022, the water knocked out his entire electric system. Since then, leaks had occurred daily.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2022. He asked for all communication to be by email and confirmed his email address. He said that since 4 July 2022, he had no lights in his toilet, kitchen, or passageway.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 2 August 2022.
On 4 August 2022, the resident told the landlord:
1. The leak stopped on 27 July 2022.
2. The water caused physical damage, such as holes, peelings, and brown marks in the hallway, toilet, and kitchen.
3. Two storage lockers located between the toilet and hallway received lots of dirty water and were smelling.
4. The electric lights in the hallway, toilet and kitchen were still off.
The landlord responded the same day and said contractors completed a repair to a leak located under a bath panel in his upstairs neighbour’s home. It said if this had resolved the leak, it would send an electrician to reinstate the lights. It asked the resident whether the storage lockers belonged to him or the landlord. The resident confirmed the lockers were part of the fabric of the building and so belonged to it. The landlord said it would request a property inspection and that contractors would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
The lights were reinstated on 17 August 2022; however, contractors noted the walls and ceilings were too damp for remedial works and further drying was needed.
The resident expressed further concerns about the storage lockers on 30 August 2022. He said the contractor told him the interior of one of the lockers would not be repaired. The resident said both the lockers were smelly and damaged, and he had to throw away the clothes that were stored in them.
The landlord followed up with the contractors on 12 September 2022. It was agreed to schedule an appointment to review the damages. Following this, the contactors said that the resident asked for the repairs to be put on hold until he spoke to his caseworker. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022, asking when its contractor could proceed with the repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 September 2022. He said that the leak restarted, and he had reported this to the contractors a week ago. He said it was leaking daily. He wanted the landlord to repair all damages caused by the water, including the damage to both storage lockers.
The landlord updated the resident on 29 September 2022. It said another leak was identified within the flat above which had now been fixed. It issued a stage 2 response holding letter while it pursued a date for the repairs.
The landlord contacted the contractors on 12 October 2022 to enquire about the position with the lockers and to schedule the remedial works. An appointment was booked for 18 October 2022. It is noted the landlord shared an incorrect email address for the resident with its contractors.
On 25 October 2022, contractors confirmed the leak had stopped but the walls and ceilings remained too wet for remedial works. The contractor said it appeared the resident was not using heating, and the lack of heating and ventilation was slowing down the works. It left the resident a voicemail saying it would complete the remedial works on 17 November 2022 if the ceiling was dry.
The landlord offered the resident a dehumidifier on 26 October 2022 to speed up the drying process. It offered to reimburse the resident for the increased energy cost.
The stage 2 response was issued on 27 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. It did not respond quickly enough to the repairs the resident had been reporting. It also failed to address the complaint issues appropriately or enforce its internal complaint process correctly.
2. Contractors identified and repaired a leak from the upstairs neighbour’s bath on 27 July 2022. A second leak was identified from the upstairs neighbour’s sink waste pipe in September 2022.
3. Contractors attended the resident’s property on 18 October 2022 and said due to the lack of heating and ventilation, the ceilings had not dried.
4. It wanted to deliver a dehumidifier to assist with the drying process. It would reimburse the difference in energy costs and asked the resident to provide comparable bills to show the increase in usage.
5. An appointment was made for 17 November 2022 to assess the impacted areas. The lockers would also be investigated.
6. A named contact would be overseeing the commitments. A direct phone number and email address were given to the resident. It would ensure everything was completed to a good standard within 4 weeks.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to £500, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in acknowledgement and formal response to the complaint.
  2. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
  3. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. £150 for the delay completing the repairs.
The resident responded the same day. He said:
1. He did not feel his ceiling was wet due to a lack of heating and ventilation. Rather, there appeared to be a continuous problem from the property above.
2. He only used electricity and there was no way of differentiating his electricity bill from the dehumidifier costs. He asked if the landlord was prepared to install a separate electricity meter for the dehumidifier.
3. He expected considerably more compensation. He said the leaks caused clothes to smell that were in the lockers. In the other lockers, food items were now unusable.
4. For hours, water would be rushing down, and he had hurt his back by emptying buckets of water.
5. For months, he did not have lighting in some areas of the property.
6. The complaint had been ongoing for 2 years.
7. He felt £2,000 was a more appropriate sum in the circumstances.

Events after the end of the complaint process

The landlord reported no access for the appointment dated 17 November 2022. It asked letters to be sent to the resident for future appointments as he may not have received the landlord’s voicemail.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 November 2022. He said the leak continued. He was concerned about the risk of an electrical fire and said insects had invaded his flat due to the damp.
Records show the landlord attended a different neighbouring property on 9 December 2022 to try to trace the leak. The neighbour refused access.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2022. He said for months the landlord had been sending contractors around without notifying him. He asked to be notified by email of the date, time, work to be done and the names of the contractors.
The neighbouring property refused access again on 9 January 2023. A further appointment was made for 13 January 2023. It is not clear what occurred at this appointment.
Works started in the neighbouring property at the end of January 2023. Evidence suggests this was a temporary fix. Further works were booked in for 6 March 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 March 2023 to arrange removing the ceiling in his bathroom. However, this was sent to an incorrect email address.
The landlord’s records show it attended a neighbour’s property on 8 March 2023. It found no leak but advised a new shower curtain was required.
The landlord noted that there was no response at the resident’s door on several occasions in March 2023, and it had been unable to contact him by telephone. It emailed him again on 5 April 2023 to book in an appointment for 12 April 2023. The email was sent to the wrong email address. No access was recorded on 12 April 2023 and 5 May 2023.
The landlord sought advice from its tenancy team about gaining access to complete the repairs. It was advised to send letters to make appointments.
The landlord met with the resident on 8 June 2023. It noted that the resident was vulnerable and not very well. Records state he was very upset with the conditions he had been living in. The landlord observed that most of the property was covered in newspaper as the resident was afraid the leak would start again.
The landlord emailed the resident with an appointment to inspect for remedial works on 14 June 2023. This was sent to the wrong email address.
A scope of works was agreed with the resident on 14 June 2023. Repairs were arranged for 11 July, 12 July, and 13 July 2023. The resident informed this Service that repairs were completed on 17 July 2023.
In December 2023, the resident informed this Service that some of the remedial works remained outstanding. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that outstanding works were reported to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property

It is not disputed that the resident initially reported a leak in December 2020. The landlord attended an emergency repair to make the electrics safe, however it failed to investigate the cause of the leak or take any action to remedy it.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord referenced that it attended the resident’s property on 15 April 2021 following reports of a further leak, but no leak was found. The landlord did not evidence its investigations into the leak on this visit, nor on the visit on 8 October 2021.
In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to the lack of evidence. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the resident, or a detailed repair log going back to the initial report of a leak in December 2020. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service 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 determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. From the limited evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord adhered to its repairing obligations or acted in line with the timescales within its repairs policy.
In response to the resident’s initial reports of a leak from the property upstairs, the landlord acted inappropriately by asking his neighbour to recall their own plumber, rather than investigating and completing the appropriate repair. Whilst this Service has not seen documentary evidence that the occupants of the upstairs property were also a tenant of the same landlord, the fact the landlord later completed repairs in that property would indicate this was the case. The landlord did not treat the resident fairly by putting the onus on his neighbour to investigate and resolve the leak, rather than taking ownership to resolve the problem and prevent further damage.
There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted it several times regarding an intermittent leak between December 2020 and January 2022, but a repair was not undertaken until 25 January 2022 – over a year after it had been reported. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to act sooner to investigate and remedy the leak. It is apparent the landlord only took decisive action after this Service wrote to it regarding the resident’s complaint. As such, the landlord missed opportunities to proactively deal with the resident’s concerns. This demonstrates the landlord did not take the resident’s reports seriously or treat him fairly.
On 16 February 2022, the resident said he reported further intermittent leaks. He said he followed this up on six occasions from 5 April 2022 to 2 May 2022. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided a full record of its communication with the resident. It failed to demonstrate that it responded effectively or took the reports of a leak seriously. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he was not clear on what was happening or when he could expect a resolution. The landlord’s poor communication exacerbated a stressful situation and caused additional distress and frustration to the resident.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that despite the resident providing the correct email address to the landlord in July 2022, it shared the wrong email address with contractors in October 2022. This caused significant delays progressing the remedial works and meant the resident did not receive updates and felt ignored. It is noted the landlord said it tried to call the resident, however early on the resident made it clear he wanted contact to be in writing.
In September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he wanted to hold fire with booking a further appointment until he had spoken to his caseworker. It is unclear whether the resident was referring to a caseworker from this Service or a support agency. Moreover, the landlord’s records refer to unrelated matters from 2021 which could have been an indication of vulnerability. The landlord would be expected, under the Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate it had taken steps to ensure it understood the needs of the resident and that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him. In this case, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord explored the resident’s needs. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
Records indicate the landlord located a leak from under the upstairs neighbour’s bath panel on 27 July 2022 and repaired it the same day. This repair took approximately 5 months to action which was significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days as set out in its repair policy.
The resident said he reported another leak on 7 September 2022. The landlord attended a neighbouring property on 27 September 2022 to replace a corroded waste pipe from a sink. While this leak was resolved within the landlord’s repair timeframe of 20 working days, the Ombudsman is minded that considering the history of leaks into the resident’s property and the outstanding remedial works, the landlord ought to have acted with a greater sense of urgency to resolve this.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident’s property was affected by several different leaks with different causes. After each repair, the landlord checked with the resident whether this had stopped the leaks. As such, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to conclude the leak was fixed.
It was fair and appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a dehumidifier to speed up the drying process and to cover the cost of operating this. However, the resident expressed concerns over how he would evidence these costs. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence of costs. However, a contractor noted the resident appeared not to be using any heating within the property. This could be an indication of hardship or vulnerability which the landlord failed to evidence that it considered. The Ombudsman is minded that the landlord ought to have had greater regard to the resident’s circumstances and explored further options to support him here.
Throughout this case, the resident expressed concerns about the fire risk due to water in the electrical system. While neither party disputes that electricians attended the property on several occasions, the landlord has not provided evidence of what happened on these visits or whether it completed a risk assessment. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System states a dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is a failing that the landlord has not evidenced its consideration of potential risks.
Overall, the main failures within this case were avoidable delays in repairing the leaks, poor communication, and repair management. Considering the evidence available and the cumulative impact on the resident, this constitutes a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases that identify significant and protracted failures of service that have a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained on 19 November 2021. The stage 1 response was issued on 8 February 2022 – over 11 weeks later. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 5 April 2022, even though this ought to have happened following the resident’s letter dated 16 February 2022. The stage 2 response was issued on 27 October 2022 – over 29 weeks later.
It is evident the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in a protracted process and a lack of clear and meaningful updates. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open for an unreasonable duration. Further, there were significant delays acknowledging the complaint at both complaint stages. This is a complaint handling failure.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint handling delays blocked access to the complaints process and delayed the resident in escalating his complaint to us. This further compounded the detriment to the resident as he was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking his concerns. Furthermore, it is evident the resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord and seeking advice from this Service to get a response. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable, and added further confusion, frustration, and distress to the resident.
It is unclear why the landlord partially upheld the complaint at stage 1. It did not clarify this with the resident when asked. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify its position and explain its decision making.
The Code states that when responding to a complaint, the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In this case, the remedial works were still not resolved 8 months after the landlord’s final response. While the Ombudsman recognises another leak was identified from a different property, the onus remained on the landlord to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity. The available evidence indicates the landlord did not learn from the resident’s complaint and there was a lack of oversight.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord said it had reported the resident’s experience to its contracts manager and it was working to improve its customer service. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. At stage 2, no learning was identified, despite the landlord apologising for delays and offering compensation. The Ombudsman is minded that the landlord should have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience to improve its service provision, complaints handling and management of repairs.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the substantive issue for the resident but instead compounded the detriment caused by the avoidable delays. Due to the accumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and the impact on the resident, this constitutes maladministration. As such, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £500. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were avoidable delays in resolving the leaks. The landlord failed to complete internal repairs within the timescales stated in its repair policy. The landlord took steps to apologise for the delays in stopping the leaks and completing the repairs, however it did not go far enough to understand or explain why the delays occurred. Nor did it take action to ensure this would not happen again. The compensation offered was not proportionate to acknowledge the length of time the repairs were outstanding or the impact on the resident.
The landlord provided the complaint responses significantly outside of the timeframes outlined in its complaints procedure and that contained within the Code. It did not evidence learning from the resident’s experience. The final response was issued in May 2022, yet remedial works were not actioned until the following year, indicating a lack of oversight and complaint follow up.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation. This replaces any previous offer by the landlord and is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into his home.
  2. £500 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his complaint.
3. Consider whether any additional compensation is due to reflect the avoidable delays and impact on the resident from its final response dated 27 October 2022 to the date the repairs were concluded.
4. Contact the resident to see if he has any reasonable adjustment requests or information he would like to add to the landlord’s system to improve its future service.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange a post-inspection of the remedial works (if it has not already done so). It must ensure they are completed to a high standard and there are no outstanding repairs related to the leaks that it is responsible for. This should include a review of the storage lockers. A report from this inspection, including photographs, must be provided to this Service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to address his concerns about the insects within his property and the damage to his personal possessions due to the leaks.