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

Onward Homes Limited (202222293)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222293

Onward Homes Limited

31 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
    2. The resident’s reports of repairs to her property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured resident of the landlord since September 2022. The property is a 2 bed terraced house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  3. The resident moved into her property on 7 September 2022. The landlord said that to enable the resident to move in quickly. It agreed to complete some of the repairs it identified during the void period, after the resident moved in.
  4. The resident said she reported approximately 22 repairs within the first week of moving in. The landlord’s records showed that the resident reported 9 repairs in September 2022, 1 in October 2022 and 4 in November 2022. The landlord noted the following:
    1. In September 2022, it carried out repairs to a kitchen drawer, the bedroom window, a leak from the boiler, a faulty socket and a hole in the loft. It said it completed those repairs within 3 days to 28 days of receiving the reports from the resident. It also noted that it inspected the report of uneven flooring in the kitchen, but it did not show that it carried out any repairs to address the issue. The logs also shows that it attended the property regarding the missing pipes for the washing machine within 28 days of the report. It noted that it left a calling card as the resident was not home.
    2. In October 2022, the resident reported that there was a gap by the side of the back door, which let the daylight in. The landlord noted that the job was cancelled and rebooked for November 2022, it did not record the reason for cancelling the job. The landlord’s records do not show the repairs were completed in November 2022.
    3. In November 2022, it said it made 2 attempts to repair the leaks to a radiator and the boiler but the resident was not home when it attended. The repairs were completed 25 days after the resident reported the issue. It also noted that it completed the repairs to the front door leak within 3 days.
  5. On 26 October 2022 and on 10 November 2022, the resident requested for the landlord to inspect her property. The landlord carried out the inspection on 6 December 2022 and shared the outcome with the resident on 21 December 2022. Whilst it identified several repairs, it said that all the repairs identified by the resident were being dealt with. It also said that some of the repairs, such as the holes in the walls, were cosmetic and it offered the resident a £50 decorative voucher to carry out the repairs herself. It also advised that the property was up to lettable standard.
  6. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2022. The complaint was about the standard of the property at letting and the delays completing the repairs once she had reported them. The resident explained that the landlord knew that some repairs were required and had failed to complete them by the time she moved in. She said that once she moved in, she reported approximately 22 repairs in the first week, and more as the time went on. She described that, after several visits, some of the repairs remained unresolved or reoccurred. She said the property was “filthy”.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 December 2022. Its response was as follows:
    1. It said it attended twice to complete the repairs to the front bedroom window and completed the repairs.
    2. It also explained that, on 20 October 2022, several repairs were cancelled because the landlord raised them with the wrong contractor and it failed to inform the resident. The repairs were for a bathroom tap, living room door hinge, door handles throughout the property, a loose waste pipe and to address draughts from a window and back door.
    3. At the resident’s request, it inspected the property on 6 December 2022, and identified the necessary repairs. The landlord said that on 19 December 2022, it raised jobs for all the repairs it had identified during the inspection. It said it would make appointments to complete the repairs as soon as possible.
    4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It identified that it failed to complete all the repairs it had agreed to do and acknowledged the delay in completing an inspection of the property. It said that it had failed to communicate effectively with its contractors, which caused delays to complete the repairs.
    5. It apologised for its failings and offered a good will gesture of £250 to the resident to reflect its failings and the inconvenience caused to her. It also said it would issue a decorating voucher to the resident.
  8. The landlord noted that the resident reported 6 repairs in December 2022 and 5 In January 2023. The landlord noted the following:
    1. In December 2022, it repaired the boiler on the same day of the resident reporting that there was no water in the boiler. It said it applied a mould wash and repaired the porch door latch, the front door and the windows. It noted that it completed the repairs between 12 and 16 days after receiving the residents’ reports.
    2. In January 2023, it said it attended to repair the back door within 9 days but did not complete all the repairs required as the resident was going out. It said it booked a follow up appointment but did not note when this was. It also noted that it repaired the electric sockets, the light switches and the toilet flush. It noted that it completed those repairs within 1 day and 11 days of receiving the resident’s reports.
    3. The landlord also noted that during in January 2023, the resident reported an issue with the boiler and a leak into the extractor fan. The landlord noted that the resident cancelled the repairs whilst waiting for the outcome of her stage 2 complaint.
  9. On 22 December 2022, the resident requested her complaint to escalate to stage 2. She remained dissatisfied because of the lack of actions from the landlord. She said, “all jobs remained undone”.
  10. The landlord noted that the resident cancelled the repairs to unblock the drains in February 2023 and the application of mould wash to the front door and electric cupboard in March 2023.
  11. The resident contacted this Service on 26 January 2023, because she had not received the landlord’s stage 2 response to her complaint.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2023. Its response was as follows:
    1. It acknowledged that since moving into the property in September 2022, the resident had to request several repairs.
    2. It confirmed that following the inspection in December 2022, it had identified 2 further repairs to 2 damp patches. It confirmed that those jobs were then raised and requested the contractor to contact her to agree a time to complete the repairs.
    3. It said that, after the resident raised some concerns about the repairs, it arranged for an independent surveyor to assess the situation. It assured the resident that it would act on the recommendations identified in the report.
    4. It reviewed its previous offer for compensation and increased its offer to £300 to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Post internal complaint process

  1. An independent surveyor carried out a property survey on 1 March 2023, and issued its report on 20 March 2023. It stated that the condition of the property should be considered as poor and it required several repairs “to bring the property back to suitable standard”. It identified rising damp within the property and that the damp course was compromised and unfit for purpose. It said there was no form of heating in one of the bedroom and the render to the rear of the property was in poor condition. It also said there were signs of a leak, which may have been because of an historical or current leak. The report recommended essential repairs to address the issues it identified.
  2. On 28 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response, she said it did not address some of the concerns she raised in her complaint. She explained that the landlord did not respond to her concerns about the standard of the property when she moved in. The resident’s complaint was duly made to this Service on 26 April 2023.
  3. On 25 June 2023, the resident shared a list of repairs required at the property with the landlord. She reported approximately 29 issues such as a leaking gutter, damp in several rooms, a leaking radiator, damaged back door and a broken extractor fan. The landlord inspected the property on 28 June 2023, and agreed a work schedule with the resident. The work schedule included the repairs the resident identified and the repairs the surveyor recommended in March 2023.
  4. The landlord agreed to decant the family until the repairs were completed. The family moved to the temporary accommodation on 9 August 2023. The resident requested to remain permanently in the temporary accommodation. The landlord agreed to her request on 4 September 2023.
  5. The landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaint and issued its final response on 18 September 2023. It acknowledged that following the survey in March 2023, there were delays in acting on the survey’s recommendations, which caused further inconvenience to the resident. It confirmed that all the repairs, the resident and the surveyor identified, were completed. It also acknowledged that, over the previous year, there had been delays in completing the repairs that the resident identified shortly after moving in. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience, it increased its compensation offer to £5,500. It said it was equivalent to:
    1. £300 previously offered at Stage 2.
    2. £1,400 for the distress caused to the resident.
    3. £1,600 for the inconvenience caused by the length of time taken to fully resolve the identified repair and maintenance issues.
    4. £2,200 for the lack of the full use of a room in her home. This was calculated at 50% of rent.
  6. The resident rejected the landlord‘s offer of £5,500, she said she felt the offer was too low and did not reflect the impact the landlord’s failings had over 11 months. She said a more appropriate level of compensation would be £7,000.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

  1. The landlord responsive repairs policy states that it will inspect and repair all its voids properties and will only relet a property once it is ready for occupation, clean and meets the needs of the incoming resident. The policy sets the intention of the landlord and as a result, a resident’s expectations. Residents moving into one of the landlord’s properties would expect to settle and enjoy their new home from the start.
  2. In keeping with its responsive repair policy, the landlord inspected the property during the void period, its void work logs shows that it identified approximately 30 repairs. The logs do not show whether any of the repairs were completed prior to the resident moving in.
  3. The landlord said that there was an agreement that some of the repairs identified during the void period would be completed after the resident moved in. It explained that this was agreed to enable the tenancy to commence at short notice. It is common for residents to move in when some repairs are outstanding, such flexible approaches can benefit residents who are keen or in need to move at short notice.
  4. In this case, whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to the resident moving in prior to completing all the required repairs, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to discuss and agree this with the resident. It is acknowledged that the landlord said there was an agreement in place to postpone the void work until the resident moved in. However, it is unclear who made the agreement with whom and what was agreed. The resident said in her stage 1 complaint that she only noticed the required repairs after she moved in. The landlord did not dispute this in its stage 1 response or reminded the resident that she had agreed to delay some repairs until after the move. Based on the evidence seen, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had not informed the resident of the outstanding repairs and that it was planning to complete those once she moved in. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
  5. It would also have been suitable for the landlord to discuss the findings of its void inspection with the resident, discuss and agree which repairs she was happy to postpone until she was in situs and which she did not. The resident could have then made an informed decision as whether she wished to accept the property as it was or delay her moving date until some of the repairs were completed.
  6. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree a work schedule with the resident, clearly stating which repairs it was planning to do once she moved in, and the timescale to complete those. The evidence did not show this happened, instead it shows that the resident had to identify and raise the repairs herself. This caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident.
  7. The landlord noted on 5 December 2022, that although it raised the repairs identified, those were cancelled. It did not say whether the repairs were raised following reports from the resident or the repairs identified during the void period. However, it indicated that there were some internal disagreements on which team should be responsible for the repairs identified during the void period. It said that because of this the repairs were cancelled and not acted on. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it shows that whilst disputing which team should be responsible for the completion of the repairs, it lost sight of the resident and the impact any delays may have on her and her family.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to respond to complaints effectively. It states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. This is an important aspect of dispute resolution, it demonstrates to residents that the landlord is listening and committed to investigate and resolve the issues. It is also an essential step towards learning and preventing the failings reoccurring in the future.
  9. On 1 December 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the standard of the property at letting. While the issue was not raised beyond stage 1, it would have been in keeping with the Code for the landlord to respond to the resident as part of its stage 1 response. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not address this element of the resident’s complaint in any of its complaint responses. This was unreasonable from the landlord and left the resident without an answer to her concerns. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to reflect, learn and put measures in place to improve its services.
  10. The resident described to the landlord in December 2022, how the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy affected her. She also explained that it had prevented her from settling in and enjoying her new home. She recalled how she had been relieved to move into her new home. She said that, after she was assaulted by a neighbour in her previous property, she was looking forward to a new start and to feeling safe. She described how disappointing “it had been to realise she had moved into a home not fit for purpose”.
  11. After considering all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was a service failure from the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. It is recognised that the landlord was sympathetic to the resident’s needs when it agreed for her to move in at short notice. However, in doing so, it did not satisfy itself that the resident was clear on which repairs were outstanding and that she was happy to accept the property as it was. It also failed to agree a work schedule and a reasonable timeframe to complete the repairs. In addition, the landlord also failed to address this in its complaint responses and demonstrate learning and show how it will prevent this from happening again. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, it also impacted on the resident & landlord relationship right from the start of the tenancy.
  12. In this case, it is reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation as a form of redress for this element of the complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is to reflect its failing in responding to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let. The compensation ordered also reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The resident’s reports of repairs to her property.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will provide an effective, responsive and accessible repairs service for residents. Whilst its policy does not provide a time scale for the completion of repairs, the landlord has a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and tenant Act 1985, to carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time once it has been notified of the issue.
  2. From the start of the tenancy, the resident requested the landlord to carry out several repairs in her property. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware there were outstanding repairs in the property when the resident moved in. It is acknowledged that between September 2022 and November 2022, the landlord’s repairs logs shows that it completed several repairs to the property within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence shows that overall, the routine repairs were completed within 28 days. For example, it repaired a kitchen drawer within 10 days of the resident reporting the issue and repaired the bedroom window within 3 days. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with what is expected of a landlord.
  3. The resident said that during the first week of moving in, she reported 22 repairs to the landlord, with more as time went on. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it recorded approximately 9 reports from the resident during the first month of the tenancy starting. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord failed to log some of the repairs or whether some of the repairs reported by the resident were considered as one report instead of several. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord failed to log some of the repairs reported by the resident.
  4. The resident expressed her concerns with the number of repairs required and in October 2022, she requested the landlord to inspect the property. She made the request twice and the landlord inspected the property approximately 40 days later. The evidence does not show that, prior to December 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request or discussed its delays in inspecting the property. This would have been reasonable for the landlord to do and reassured the resident that it was planning to act on her request.
  5. On 21 December 2022, the landlord said that during the inspection it identified some repairs, whilst other were cosmetic and would not be classed as repairs. The landlord clarified its position in regard to repairs which it considered cosmetic and issued a £50 decorative voucher to the resident, which was reasonable.
  6. The landlord also informed the resident on 21 December 2022, that it had raised jobs for the repairs it identified during the inspection. However, the landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised most the repairs approximately 2 weeks after the inspection. The log also shows that although it identified that there was a gap on the side of the back door, it did not raise the repair until 9 January 2023. Whilst the landlord indicated in its stage 1 response, that there were delays in raising the repairs because a staff member had not been in work, this was not a reasonable explanation for the delays. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to organise the repairs promptly once it became aware of them. This caused frustration to the resident and impacted on the resident and landlord relationship. The resident said she lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues.
  7. Furthermore, this raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. It assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services and provide an audit trail of what happened. In this case, whilst some repairs appeared to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, the evidence shows that the landlord delayed logging the repairs on its repairs log. For example, it identified the repair to the back door on 6 December 2022, raised the repairs on 9 January 2023 and attended the property to fix the problem on 18 January 2023. The log shows that it attended to the repairs within 9 days, when it actually attended 43 days after it became aware of the issue. This raises concerns about the accuracy of its records and the audit trail.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely. In this case, the landlord raised a job to apply a mould wash in the property on 20 December 2022 and completed this 2 days later. Whilst this was appropriate from the landlord, the evidence does not show when it became aware of a damp issue in the property. However, the resident informed the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that she had identified damp and mould in several rooms. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware of the issue by 1 December 2022. It would have been reasonable and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould for the landlord to act promptly and consider treating the affected areas sooner.
  9. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSR and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  10. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it attempted to understand the underlying cause of the damp and mould. For instance, it did not show that it investigated the source of the damp. It did not show that it monitored and measured the humidity, looked at the neighbouring properties, or considered whether a specialist surveyor was required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out further investigative work when the resident reported the issues in December 2022. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord organised a survey of the property following the residents’ stage 2 complaint, this was 3 months after she reported the issue. It was unreasonable for the landlord to wait 3 months before taking the necessary steps to understand the problem. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right and to prevent the issue from escalating further.
  11. The landlord informed the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it had organised for a survey to be carry out at the property to assess the situation. It also reassured the resident that it would carry out any repairs recommended by the surveyor. The survey took place in March 2023. The surveyor said that the condition of the property should be considered as poor. It recommended several repairs to bring the property to “suitable standards”, including installing a radiator in one of the bedrooms, damp proofing work and investigate a potential leak. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to act promptly and carry out the repairs within a reasonable time frame.
  12. However, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to act on the surveyor’s recommendations once it received the report. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident who had to contact the landlord several times about the issues. On 25 June 2023, she provided a list of approximately 30 repairs to the landlord, some of which were recommended by the survey in March 2023. It is acknowledged that the landlord met with the resident and agreed a detailed work schedule in July 2023. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord did not explain why it failed to do this in March 2023 when it received the surveyor’s report, which would have been reasonable to expect.
  13. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged in July 2023, that “it had been slow” to act following the survey. It is also acknowledged that following the inspection it carried out in June 2023, it took actions to mitigate the impact of the repairs on the resident. It agreed to move the resident to temporary accommodation until the repairs were completed, and then agreed for the resident to remain permanently in the temporary accommodation when she made the request. Those were positive steps from the landlord. Overall, the evidence shows that, since July 2023, the resident has been satisfied with the landlord actions and communications. The landlord’s actions helped rebuild trust with the resident and improved the resident and landlord relationship.
  14. The evidence shows that, after it issued its stage 2 response, the landlord identified further failings in its handling of the repairs and because of this, it reviewed its final response to the resident’s complaint. It appears that the landlord was trying to be helpful to the resident and avoid causing her further inconvenience. The landlord identified additional failings once the internal complaint process was completed. For example, it recognised that it failed to do what it agreed in its stage 2 response, such as acting on the surveyor’s recommendations. However, as those were new issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to give the resident the option of raising a new complaint once it identified those failings.
  15. Nevertheless, the landlord issued its final response in September 2023. It acknowledged its failings and recognised that it had caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. It apologised for the failings and increased its offer of compensation.
  16. After considering the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord findings that there was maladministration in its handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord is best place to know the full extend of its failings. Therefore, based on the landlord’s own assessment and the findings of this investigation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s final offer reflects the failings of the case. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident its offer of £5,500 compensation to reflect the inconvenience and distress its failings caused to the resident. The compensation is made of:
    1. £300 previously offered at Stage 2.
    2. £1,400 for the distress caused over the period.
    3. £1,600 for the inconvenience caused by the length of time taken to fully resolve the identified repair and maintenance issues.
    4. £2,200 for the lack of the full use of a room in her home.

The associated complaint.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It states that, upon receipt of a complaint, it will contact the resident within two working days. It also states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint in December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 12 working days later and issued its stage 1 response 2 days outside its published timeframe. Whilst this was not in keeping with its policy, the evidence did not show that the delays impacted on the resident’s overall outcome.
  3. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in December 2022. She contacted this service in January 2023 for advice as she had not received the landlord’s response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 16 days outside its published timeframe. This was not appropriate from the landlord. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to handle the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy. This caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident who had to contact this service for advice.
  4. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy states that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident. The evidence did not show that the landlord informed the resident of the delays in responding to her complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take that step and explained the reason for the delays to the resident. It would also been reasonable for the landlord to agree a new date to issue its respond to her complaint. This would have also been in keeping with its policy.
  5. As mentioned earlier in this report, the landlord failed to respond to all the elements of the resident’s complaint. It did not respond to her concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. Additionally, it would have been reasonable to expect that, as part of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord would have reviewed whether its stage 1 response was reasonable and in line with its policy. As such, it is expected that the stage 2 review would identify any failings within its complaint handling at stage 1. In this case, the landlord failed to identify that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property at letting. This was also a missed opportunity to put things right and provide a thorough response to the resident’s complaint.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to acknowledge and respond to her complaint within its published timeframe. It also failed to identify its failings in relation to its handling of the complaint. The landlord’s failings caused some inconvenience and frustration to the resident who had to contact this Service for advice. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on its website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. 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 concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
  2. 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 reports of repairs to her property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write and apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation of £5,750 directly to the resident. This is made up of:
      1. £5,500 as offered by the landlord to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the repairs at the property.
      2. An additional £100 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the residents’ concerns about the condition of the property when the tenancy started.
      3. An additional £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling her complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its record keeping system and self-assess itself against the KIM report. The report can be accessed at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.