Onward Homes Limited (202105509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105509

Onward Homes Limited

19 February 2024

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 landlord’s handling of fire safety works to the exterior façade of the block, in particular its communication and the provision of the EWS1 form.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and the Legal and Policy Context

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is ground-floor two– bedroom flat in a block that is over 18m tall, and which has designated parking to basement level. He lives there with his 3 children. A private company is the freeholder of block, which is managed by a subsidiary of the landlord, CPS, which is triparty to the lease. For simplicity, this report will simply make reference to the landlord, unless specific reference to CPS in necessary.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 prescribe the landlord’s consultation requirements for major works:
1. Stage 1 – Notice of intention to carry out works
  1. Details of the works are to be provided together with an explanation of why they need to take place. Leaseholders will be invited to comment on the proposed works and nominate a contractor to provide a quote. They will have 30-days in which to respond.
2. Stage 2 – Statement of estimates
  1. Leaseholders are to be provided with a summary of comments received from stage one. A summary of two estimates for each item of work will also need to be included together with details of where they may be inspected or obtained. Any connection between a contractor and the landlord should be noted when listing the contractor’s details. Leaseholders have 30-days in which to respond with their comments.
3. Stage 3 – Notice of reasons
  1. If the selected contractor is not a nominee provided by the leaseholders or is not the lowest estimate the landlord must serve a notice of reasons. This must state its reasons for awarding the contractor or specifying where and when the statement can be inspected. If the landlord received observations on the estimates, it must also summarise these and provide its response to them, demonstrating that it has ‘had regard’ to what the leaseholders have said. This statement must be served within 21 days of entering into the contract with the contractor.
In January 2020, the government’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued revised guidance on building safety standards for flats within apartment blocks – “Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings”. As a result, buildings of any height were potentially in scope for requiring an external wall fire review and completion of an EWS1 (external wall system) form devised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
EWS1 assessments inform the valuation of flats in buildings that may need cladding remediation and provide assurances to both lenders and property buyers that buildings would not incur future high remediation costs. EWS1 certification required a new assessment of the building by a qualified, independent professionals to establish if the external wall system met new fire risk standards, or whether remedial work was needed.
The Building Safety Fund (BSF) was introduced by the government in 2020 to cover the cost of replacing unsafe non-Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding on high rise buildings over 18 metres in England.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on “Dealing with Cladding Complaints” (May 2021), identified three key lessons for landlords to address the uncertainty of residents about their housing options and financial liabilities.
1. “What are the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance, and are these fair and reasonable? The Ombudsman believes it is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map – with timescales – to all residents. The longer the gap between setting out long-term plans and any progress the less likely it is that this will be considered fair and reasonable.”
2. “How has the landlord communicated with shared owners/leaseholders regarding the situation, and was this communication appropriate? Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced, and proactive given the evolving situation and changing circumstances. The risk otherwise is increased frustration and deterioration of the resident and landlord relationship.”
3. “How has the landlord responded to the individual circumstances of the resident? Has the landlord considered the impact of the situation on the particular circumstances for the resident? The Ombudsman expects a landlord to show empathy for residents trapped in these circumstances and to mitigate the impact where possible. Landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint and, where appropriate, exercise discretion as they would with other complaints. The longer this crisis continues the greater the impact will be on individuals’ life chances, their finances, mental health and well-being.”
The landlord’s Home Ownership Policy states that:
1. “We may attend residents’ meetings and the AGM of any recognised Tenants & Residents Association (TRA) or Residents’ Management Company (RMC) when requested and where possible.
2. We may seek feedback from customers (Leaseholders, Shared Owners, and freeholders) via surveys and through our Homeowners Forum.
3. Where necessary we will undertake any necessary consultation in accordance with the requirements of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (As amended) when carrying out major or cyclical work or entering into long term agreements. We will always ensure works are reasonable, required, and provide value for money.
4. Where Section 20 does not apply and we are not required to formally consult homeowners, we will clearly communicate plans to carry out major or cyclical works or to enter contracts and will engage customers as early as possible in the process”.
CPS’ Complaints Procedure stated that:
1. Investigation – a relevant member of staff will contact the resident within two working days to establish a resolution and establish a timescale… It is expected that most complaints can be resolved within 10 working days.
2. Review – When the landlord receives a request for a review, it will send an acknowledgement within two working days and aim to send a full response within 10 working days.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, CPS managed complaints but did not have a compensation policy or procedure. Now the landlord manages CPS’ complaints.

Summary of Events

In June 2020, the landlord advised residents that it had commissioned civil & structural engineers, recommended by the freeholder, to undertake an inspection of the external façade. The work would be undertaken prior to the end of July and the report’s findings forwarded to it soon after this. The landlord further explained that the work was required because it needed to confirm that the walls and cavities did not contain any products which may be flammable. The civil and structural engineers would capture the relevant information on a EWS1 form, which would be made available to all homeowners. The landlord further advised that the estimated cost of the inspection was £15,000 to £20,000, which would be covered from within the scheme’s fund.
The civil and structural engineers appointed a fire consultant who inspected the building in October 2020. On 9 December 2020, the consultant completed the assessment of the external wall construction and produced a signed EWS1 form. It is understood that the landlord confirmed flammable cladding was present on small areas of the building. The freeholder applied to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities’ (DLUHC’s) Building Safety Fund (BSF) to register the building and apply for funding for the removal and replacement of the cladding. In March 2021, the BSF awarded the landlord a Pre-Tender Support award although the landlord required an additional tranche of funding to allow works to commence.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord wrote to residents stating that it had received the results from the EWS1 survey, the key information being:
1. It had been found that areas of the glazed curtain walling to the external corners of the building needed to have suitable cavity barriers installed between floor levels and that small areas of metal cladding at roof height also needed to have new cavity barriers installed.
2. This meant it would need to remove the affected glazing and metal cladding and install new cavity barriers and insulation.
The landlord further stated that it would consult about the work to the glazed areas of curtain walling and that it was working with consultants to get estimates as quickly as possible. It had applied to the Building Safety Fund with initial funding having been approved. It would keep residents updated with regular letters.
On 1 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he wished to make a formal complaint. He stated that he wished to sell the property as he was unhappy with how the building had been managed. He stated that “The latest break in and car broken into is the final straw.”
The landlord has not been able to provide the Service with a copy of the Stage 1 response. Correspondence from the resident indicates that the landlord responded on 12 April 2021.
On 19 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
1. The windows had only been cleaned externally once and he understood CPS only cleaned certain windows.
2. He wanted a breakdown of service charge expenditure and had particular concerns:
  1. A lot of money had been spent on repairing the car park door.
  2. He wanted confirmation of when the patio area was cleaned and how much it cost.
  3. He wanted confirmation on when the window cleaning was done and much this service cost.
  4. The caretaker’s wage seemed “misleading.”
  5. Cleaning seemed to be “minimal” during lockdown.
3. He asked the landlord:
  1. to confirm if he was unable to sell his property as he wanted to.
  2. to confirm who was responsible if he sold his property at a later time but the property market changed in a negative way.
4. He had asked for a video call with other leaseholders to discuss the latest service charge notice, fire regulations and the cladding issue; however, he had received no response.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord sent a section 20 Notice of Intention reiterating the findings of the EWS1 survey and asking the leaseholders to make observations. The cover letter stated that funding had been applied for, but at the time, it was not guaranteed that funding would be granted. It advised it was aiming to commence works by September 2021.
On 2 June 2021, the resident asked the landlord to provide an update to homeowners, and that they be provided with the estimates of the works to be carried out. He requested a video call as letters received did not make sense to him. He also asked for an update on the status of his escalated complaint.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord responded to the resident advising:
1. The works had been specified and tendered by its consultants and the BSF had been updated. With this, it had also signed a contract with the BSF for short-term funds to be released into an account held in Trust. This money would cover the cost of consultants’ fees and getting the project on site.
2. It was on-track to finalise the application prior to the end of June 2021 and to commence works that summer subject to contractors’ availability and lead-in times etc.
3. It still did need some customers to forward their State-Aid Declaration Forms as this could hold-up progress.
4. It would like to attend a residents’ meeting.
On 7 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that his complaint of April 2021 was not upheld and when he asked for it to be reviewed, he was sent an information pack. He confirmed that he had complained about break-ins, the condition of the scheme and no clear guidance, having to clear and clean the communal gardens and the patio area, numerous cats on site which fouled. The resident also stated that he had concerns about the rise in his service charge had asked for a breakdown. The resident further stated that there were no clear discussions around the cladding issue.
The landlord has provided evidence that the Service Charter Income and Expenditure Account for 2020-21 was signed off on 20 August 2021.
On 29 August 2021, in correspondence about a residents’ meeting scheduled for September 2021 the resident informed the landlord the issues to be discussed were:
1. Estimated costs for internal fire safety works.
2. The likely timeframe to get the EWS1.
3. Whether a 3rd quote was obtained and when would works start.
4. Invoices that made up the fire risk assessment fee of £11,809.90.
5. Service charge queries including:
  1. Receipts for window cleaning which was not done fully.
  2. Whether it was fair to pay a regular service charge when most maintenance requests had been put on hold (eg. Cleaning, repairs, damaged balls outside garage doors.
Following the residents’ meeting, on 1 October 2021 the landlord sent an email in which it said:
1. As agreed, it would issue a Statement of Estimates, the second stage of the section 20 process.
2. It would also include a covering letter explaining the building safety fund updates and dates of future meetings to discuss the cladding issues as well as a Frequently Asked Questions section.
3. It would also arrange a separate meeting to discuss the day-to-day management of the scheme and the accounts.
4. It was attaching a table that addressed the residents’ original queries, along with invoices for the window cleaning as requested. (The landlord has provided this Service with 4 quarterly invoices from between June 2020 and March 2021 each of £323.71).
The landlord has provided the Service with a copy of the table in which it responded to the queries discussed at the residents’ meeting in September 2021. The table states that:
1. The estimated costs for internal fire safety works were £500,000 with a 1% fee for third parties.
2. Homes England did not require a 3rd quote anymore.
3. It had wanted to start works in September 2021 and had submitted the tender report. However, it was awaiting approval from Homes England to confirm funding. It would proceed with the Statement of Estimates as it had the costs. It would look to mobilise the contractor after the Statements of Estimates had expired and it had considered observations, and if Homes England had confirmed funding.
4. Additional fire safety assessments such as the replacement of smoke vents would not be covered by the fund.
5. The fire risk assessment fee of £11,809.90 was in the estimated budget 21–22 and therefore not expenditure for 20-21.
6. External windows were cleaned quarterly invoiced each time at £323.71. It would investigate why there was no expenditure relating to internal windows.
7. Day to day works and cleaning should not be affected by the cladding issue. It had procured a new repairs contractor and was in the process of procuring a new contract for cleaning.
In November 2021, the landlord sent residents the Statement of Estimates notice. It provided details of the 2 estimates received to carry out the proposed works and said that its consultants preferred a particular tender. It advised the estimates and contract specification were available for inspection and that residents had 30 days to make observations. The landlord further advised it was still hopeful of receiving grant funding from the BSF so costs would not be recovered from leaseholders directly. The landlord also listed the observations received from leaseholders to the Notice of Intention, with its responses.
Within its responses the landlord advised that “We are not able to confirm exactly how long the process will take. In the main, this is because we are applying for funding of the works via the UK Governments Building Safety Fund. As such we are obliged to follow their process, this does result in delays where they experience high levels of demand. The fund was initially applied for by over 2,800 applicants or so it is inevitable that timescales will be extended. At present we have passed stage 1 of the process, and we are working through stage 2. Once we clear stage 2, we will then wait to hear from the fund in relation to whether the works will be funded or not. This process could take several months. We will then place an order for the works with the contractor. The contractor has indicated that currently they can start within 3 weeks of the order being received. This may change should they receive orders for other work in the meantime. They have indicated that the work will take approximately 12 weeks to complete.”
On 1 December 2021, the Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at Stage 2. We attached his escalated complaint of 19 April 2021 and his email of 7 July 2021.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint:
1. It was meeting with the contractor weekly and to progress the matter through the BSF process as quickly as possible. The request for funding would be considered by the Board on 16 December 2021 and that it expected a response in January.
2. It was not expecting to make any significant changes to staffing in the Home Ownership Team in the near future.
3. It wanted to attend regular meetings with residents. It would arrange a meeting for January 2022 and then schedule in quarterly meetings thereafter.
4. It had sent residents a budget at the start of the year followed by end of year accounts. These were sent to all residents each year with a covering letter explaining how they could make queries or ask questions.
5. It understood that the resident was keen to sell his home and that the ongoing building works were making that difficult for him. It would continue to do all it could to move things forward quickly as soon as it had a decision from Homes England and would keep residents updated.
6. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the delay in providing the Stage 2 response.
On 12 April 2022, the DLUHC sent a letter to the landlord in which it conditionally approved full funding for the cladding works. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this decision. On 5 May 2022, the resident advised the Service that it was nearly 3 years without any cladding works and that he had not received the EWS1 form.
In internal emails sent between 29 and 30 June 2021, staff requested approval to guarantee payments to the contractor as it had had confirmation about the funding for the cladding works, but there were delays in the funding coming through. Senior staff agreed the request.
On 24 January 2023, the engineers sent the landlord a signed EWS1 form, to replace the previous EWS1 form of 9 December 2020, having completed an assessment of the external wall construction following remediation works. It concluded that the fire risk was sufficiently low so no further remedial works were required.
On 22 and 24 February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the cladding works had been completed. It provided a copy of the EWS1 Form, which detailed the conclusions of the independent assessment conducted by its consultants.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

On 21 November 2023, the resident advised the Service that there was an “ongoing conflict” with the landlord as it would show him or other residents the financial accounts for the building. The resident further informed the Service in January 2024 that he thinks his current service charge bill is too high. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal 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 the 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. However, the resident’s ongoing concerns about his service charge have been noted to put the complaint considered by this Service in its current context and to inform the orders made.

The landlord’s handling of fire safety works to the exterior façade of the block, in particular its communication and the provision of the EWS1 form

It was in line with government guidance at the time that the landlord undertook to survey the external façade of the resident’s building. However, having advised the residents of this in June 2020 there is no evidence that it provided a further update until March 2021, 9 months later. The landlord had indicated that it would receive the outcome of the inspection at the end of July 2020, raising the resident’s expectation that it would provide him further information around this time.
The update of March 2021 was appropriate as it confirmed the outcome of the survey, specifically that the survey identified further remedial works. It also made clear that it required government funding for the works which had been applied for but not yet been approved in full. The landlord made clear when commencing section 20 consultation that as government funding of the works was not guaranteed at that time there may be a service charge, and therefore it was following the statutory process for service charges. It therefore provided appropriate information about the funding of the works.
The landlord also provided a timeframe for the works stating it aimed to commence them by September 2021. Its response of 3 June 2021 indicated that it believed this timeframe was achievable.
The landlord provided a further update after the residents’ meeting in September 2021. It made clear it was still awaiting a decision on funding and that it would continue the Section 20 consultation. Through this it made clear that it could not start works in September 2021 as anticipated. When responding to observations in the Statement of Estimates in November 2021, the landlord provided a further update stating that it was still awaiting a decision on funding. While it did not provide a clear timeframe for the works, this was outside its control and therefore reasonable.
However, the guidance in the Spotlight Report which had come into effect by that time highlighted the need to provide a clear road map – with timescales – to all residents. The report further stated that landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing “appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every three months even where there is little or no change”. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to continue updating the resident on a regular basis, even if it was still awaiting a decision on funding from the BSF.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord advised that its Board was meeting about funding issues and would be making a decision in January 2022. The landlord therefore raised the resident’s expectation that the funding for the works may be resolved and that it would advise him of the Board’s decision. However, there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord also did not advise the resident when the DHULC confirmed full funding had been approved, even though it agreed to do so in the Stage 2 response.
In fact, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident about the funding and time limit for the building safety works, until February 2023 when it provided confirmation that cladding works had been completed and the EWS1 form. It therefore did not meet good practice as set out in the Spotlight Report regarding communicating every three months on cladding issues during this period.
In summary, the landlord has not consistently updated the resident about the status and funding of the remedial works to his block. The Spotlight Report states that landlord should be responsive to the individual circumstances of residents. In this case, the resident made clear when submitting his complaint that he wished to sell his property. However, mortgage companies refused to finance sales until cladding issues had been resolved, therefore the resident required the completed EWS1 form. Given his wish to sell his property the resident’s uncertainty, distress and inconvenience from the delay to the remedial works and failings in communication was heightened. In fact, he had highlighted concerns about the financial impact. However, the landlord did not appreciate or consider the impact of the situation on him.

Service charges

The Service cannot make a binding decision on the level of a service charge or whether it was reasonably incurred. Correspondingly, we cannot determine whether the service itself is ‘reasonable’, how many times contractors should attend or whether the service provides value for money. We may, however, look at complaints that relate to the collection of rents or service charges, their calculation or how this information was communicated.
In his complaint of 1 April 2021, the resident raised concerns about the management of the building. In his escalated complaint of 19 April 2021 and 7 July 2021 he raised specific queries about the charge for items on the service charge and whether the window cleaning and other services were being provided as specified. The landlord did not respond to the escalated complaint or otherwise address the resident’s queries. It therefore did not take the necessary action to resolve his concerns about his service charge and management of the scheme.
Service charge issues were raised at the residents’ meeting of September 2021, including the window cleaning charge. The landlord in response provided details of the cost of the window cleaning charge but did not address the resident’s substantive concerns that the service was not fully provided. It agreed to investigate the window cleaning service further, but there is no evidence that it did so. As such, the landlord missed another opportunity to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The fact that the landlord needed to investigate further indicates that the service specification was not clear to all parties and/or that it did not have adequate monitoring arrangements.
The landlord evidently recognised that there were general concerns about the day-to-day management of the scheme and the service charge as it agreed to arrange a separate meeting. However, there is no evidence that another meeting was held. This represents another missed opportunity to answer and resolve the resident’s concerns about his service charge.
When the Service asked the landlord to respond at Stage 2 it had another opportunity to ascertain the resident’s service charge concerns and queries, and resolve them. If necessary, it should have confirmed the concerns he had, in line with the Service’s Complaint Handling Code of the time which stated “Landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident. Clarification should be sought if the complaint is not clear.” However, it failed to do so.
In fact, the landlord provided generic information in the Stage 2 response that did not address the particular concerns of the resident. It stated simply that the resident was sent the charge before the start of the financial year and end of year accounts, without recognising the concerns the resident had raised. The landlord in the Stage 2 response also agreed to hold a meeting in January; however, there is no evidence that the meeting took place or that the landlord took another measure to achieve the intended outcome. This further contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord’s communication was not effective and that it had not heard him.
In summary, the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s particular concerns about the provision of specified services and related charges, and the management of the Scheme. When it has responded it has not identified or addressed the points the resident was making, and compounding this, it has not taken follow up action it stated it would take.

The landlord’s communication and handling of the complaint.

The resident submitted a complaint on 1 April 2020. It is evident the landlord responded as the resident sought to escalate the complaint on 19 April 2021. However, it is a matter of concern that the landlord has not been able to provide a copy of the response. Accurate and complete records is a core function of a complaints service. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code of the time stated “A full record shall be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received; all correspondence with the resident, ….” The Service acknowledges that CPS managed its own complaints at the time, but this is no longer the case.
The resident escalated his complaint on 19 April 2021 and again on 7 July 2021. Under CPS’ complaints procedure at the time stated it should have sent an acknowledgement within two working days and aimed to send a full response within 10 working days. However, there was a failure by CPS to acknowledge the escalated complaint and respond.
The resident had to contact this Service about his complaint to receive a response from the landlord. Therefore, the time and trouble he experienced to progress his complaint was more that what would usually be expected. In the response, as noted above the landlord did not respond in detail to the issues the resident had raised, in particular concerns about his service charge and the management of the Scheme. The Complaint Handling Code stated “On receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.”
The landlord acknowledged the delay in the Stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation. Given the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and the shortcomings in the Stage 2 response, this award did not quite reflect his detriment and is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of fire safety works to the exterior façade of the block, in particular its communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not consistently update the resident about the status and funding of the remedial works to his block prior to sending the EWS1 form. Given his wish to sell his property, the resident’s uncertainty, distress and inconvenience from the delay to the remedial works and failings in communication was heightened.
The landlord has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s particular concerns about the provision of specified services and related charges, and the management of the Scheme. When it has responded it has not identified or addressed the points the resident was making, and compounding this, it has not taken follow up action it stated it would take.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s escalated complaint and did not confirm or consider in detail the particular issues the resident had raised. Given the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and the shortcomings in the Stage 2 response, its offer of compensation was not sufficient to resolve the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £650 compensation comprising:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of fire safety works to the exterior façade of the block, in particular its communication.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.
  3. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
3. confirm with the resident what information he wants in respect of his service charge and management of the scheme at this point in time and then confirm the date it will provide the information. In responding to the resident the landlord should demonstrate that it has considered its statutory obligations.