Together Housing Association Limited (202223306)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223306

Together Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The mutual exchange (ME).
2. Concerns about the condition of the property and repairs needed following the ME.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which she secured through mutual exchange on 11 July 2022. The property is a three-bedroom house.
The resident has 2 young children. During the timeframe considered she told the landlord one of her children had autism. However, the landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded in the customer sign up information or logged on its systems.
The resident viewed the property and signed up for the ME in May 2022.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord inspected the property. The report of the same date includes 11 photographs but does state the condition of repair at the date of inspection.
On 12 July 2022, the resident reported issues with the property. The landlord’s note of the call state she said the property was uninhabitable, full of damp and mould, had an “over powering smell of ammonia”, a rotten kitchen floor and that each room had swarms of blue bottle flies in. She told the landlord she had 2 young children, one of whom was autistic. The landlord noted that when compared with the photos from the inspection on 17 June 2022 there was a “huge difference” in the property condition and the garden.
The landlord arranged for an emergency inspection on the same date when it its repairs inspector noted that all downstairs floors needed cleaning due to dog urine that had penetrated the carpets and stained the floor. Its inspector confirmed that the kitchen floorboards were rotten through and unsafe and said items fly tipped in the garden including carpets and mattresses needed removing and the bins emptying.
On 14 July 2022, the resident called the landlord to find out when the property was going to be cleaned and repairs carried out. Its note stated a deep clean would be carried out the next day then the property would be inspected again.
The property was deep cleaned on 15 July 2022 and then reinspected by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 18 July 2022, it raised jobs to carry out an asbestos survey “with a view to kitchen refurb” and to change the locks on the front and back doors.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord raised a job to carry out mould treatments within the property with a target date of 26 July 2022. Its repair records show the treatments were completed by this date.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord also raised a job to fix the internal doors that were not closing properly. This job had a target date of 3 September 2022. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with the amount of time it would take to complete repairs and said until that time, the property was uninhabitable.
On 12 August 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord’s records show this related to how it had dealt with repairs in relation to the kitchen and other works and regarding “ a lack of communication” about the items that needed removing in the garden and pest control. Its note stated that the resident wanted to speak to its Neighbour Manager (NM).
On 15 August 2022, the landlord raised a job to carry out “urgent” pest control due to her report of rats in the kitchen, this had a target date of 24 September 2022.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord raised a job with its contractor to replace the kitchen “as per quote”. This work had target date of 18 October 2022.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 18 August 2022 the landlord fitted new handles to all of the windows in the property.
The landlord’s complaint record dated 18 August 2022 show it dealt with the resident’s formal complaint under its informal complaints stage. Its note of the same date stated that during a call with the resident it confirmed the ME process and that the ingoing resident became responsible for “tenant damage” which included the condition of the kitchen and the issues to do with the garden. The landlord’s note stated that the ME process was not the same as an allocation and new tenancy process. It had however arranged for the property to be cleaned and to replace the kitchen and continue to manage the rats. It stated that regarding work to the rear gardens for the whole of the street, this would form part of “a bigger discussion”. The note said the resident was annoyed at the lack of response to her report that the loft was full of items that need removing. It noted it was not responsible for this but it would arrange for these to be cleared.
The landlord’s records show that on 24 September 2022, it provided rat treatment in the kitchen.
On 27 September 2022, the resident reported there were bed bugs in the property. Although the landlord’s record of the same date stated this “needs pest control” it was unable to offer any treatment until several weeks later.
On 12 October 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord’s record of her complaint stated that she reported “inhumane living conditions” and that there were multiple issues including a kitchen which she had been unable to use for 3 months. She explained this meant she was unable to prepare food and had to pay for meals out and wash clothes at the launderette. She also said that her daughter had been bitten by bed bugs. She asked the landlord to write off the arrears. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date.
The landlord’s records indicate that:
1. The kitchen refurbishment was completed on 21 October 2022.
2. Plastering to bedroom ceiling and wall was carried out on 27 October 2022.
3. Beg bug treatment was provided on 27 October 2022.
On 28 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This stated it was sorry the resident had had cause to complain about the condition of the property when taking it over as a ME. The landlord said her new kitchen was now completed and that improvement work to her bathroom was also planned.
Within its response, the landlord stated that the repairs requested were carried out within timescales and it had arranged a deep clean of the floors immediately and actioned a new kitchen and bathroom upgrade. It said it had also requested a quote from a subcontractor to remove the items from the area beyond her garden, so this was now being actioned.
The landlord referenced its ME procedure that stated she took the property ‘as seen’. It said it had no responsibility for reinstating fixtures or fittings that had been removed or to repair any damage caused by the outgoing tenant.
The landlord said in regards to her rent arrears it was unable to write this off as there was always an obligation to pay rent even if there was work needed in the property. However, it offered £200, the equivalent of around two weeks rent as it appreciated there had been a level of disruption, and that the condition of the property was not as she had anticipated. It said this amount would be taken off the rent arrears as per its compensation policy.
The landlord said that during their phone call, she had mentioned the energy performance certificate and said that this had expired and it had ‘let’ the property illegally without it. The landlord stated that as this was an assignment through ME, it is not classed as a new tenancy and therefore there was no legal obligation to have a current energy certificate when taking it over. However, if she wished to have an updated one, it said it could arrange this for her.
The landlord’s records indicate that on:
1. On 16 November 2022, it raised a job to fit cross vent to roof and remove any left items by the outgoing tenant.
2. On 29 November 2022, it surveyed the property for bedbugs.
3. On 29 November 2022, it carried out an environmental clean of the loft and cleared items.
On 2 December 2022, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said its offer of £200 in compensation was “insulting” as it did not reflect the financial, emotional and physical burden placed upon her and her children since the exchange took place. She said she had been unable to pay rent due to the cumulative costs of sourcing food for her family and washing clothes elsewhere, as well as the cost of additional petrol to enable her to get to and from these places. Bearing in mind they were living “like this” for 15 weeks, its offer of £200 was “not good enough”.
The resident said that she appreciated that a new kitchen had been fitted and that the works for the bathroom were also due to be started over the next few weeks, along with looking into the environmental clearing of the garden. However, she stated that she had made the landlord aware of the repairs necessary to get the property to a liveable standard within a few days of her tenancy start date. The resident said the main issue was the length of time she had been expected to reside and pay full rent in a property that was unsuitable for human habitation.
She referred to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018) and said aspects of the property did not meet the required standard including:
1. Damp and mould – Although the mould in the kitchen was initially treated a couple of weeks into her tenancy, there had been new mould growth in the kitchen already, only weeks after it was fitted. This was due to the absence of an extractor fan and because the previous tenant painted all the window frames shut. There was also a large amount of mould in the bathroom and around some of the windows, furthermore, clothes and a car seat that she had placed in the loft were covered in mould after a few weeks.
2. Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse – She had made the landlord aware from the outset that waste left behind by the previous tenant in the garden had caused a pest problem. She said that bed bugs had also caused a problem, biting her children and causing them all a great deal of distress. The first-bed bug treatment had been completed, but only after she had already had paid £200 privately for a pest control expert to treat the property, after being told by the landlord that she’d have to wait several weeks before the problem was to be resolved.
3. Food safety – Whilst the kitchen had now been replaced, it was unsafe to use prior to this as structural damage of the work surfaces and urine sodden floor boards meant it was a breeding ground for bacteria. It also had broken tiles falling from the wall in the kitchen, holes in multiple areas of the floor (allowing the garden rats access to the property), dampness and no extractor fan.
4. Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage -painted over tiles in the bathroom had blistered and condensation had formed in the cracks and mould regenerated quickly.
5. Fire safety – She had informed the landlord on several occasion that were fridge freezers (containing gasses), gas canisters (containing gasses), and paint tubs (highly flammable) left in the garden. This was a clear fire and potential explosion hazard and risks to not only the health of her and her family but that of the neighbours.
The resident also said that to ensure the property’s energy efficiency rated was in line with requirements, she asked that the EPC was updated.
On 20 December 2022, the landlord raised a job to install a kitchen fan with a target date of 6 February 2023.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord raised orders to carry out bathroom renovation as per quote and renew internal doors and sill boards to windows with target dates of 3 February 2023. The landlord also booked an EPC survey for the 28 December 2022.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint. It said it understood she would like increased compensation due to the costs she had incurred since the exchange. It also acknowledged the areas where she felt it had not met the Homes Act 2018. It stated:
1. Damp and mould – Regarding the windows being painted closed, it believed the windows had now been measured for replacement and it was waiting for a quote from its supplier. An order has also been raised for a humidity fan.
2. Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse – pest control issues reported were responded to. It recognised that she arranged bed bug treatment separately due to a delay with its contactor responding and it would compensate her for that.
3. Food safety – it arranged to clean the flooring and had also provided a new kitchen
4. Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage – it was carrying out any repairs to the bathroom as notified under its repairs process.
5. Fire safety/explosions – It was removing any items in the area behind several properties that had been dumped.
The landlord said it had arranged for an EPC to take place at her property following her request. A ME was not classed as a new let or a new tenancy and therefore there was no requirement to complete an EPC.
Further, as part of the ME process, it visually inspected the property whilst the outgoing tenant and their belongings were in situ on the 17 June 2022. This was in line with its process. It said it did not identify at that time any issues that would prevent the exchange from taking place. The landlord stated it had responded quickly to the issues she had brought to its attention by visiting the property and arranging for repairs to be completed as soon as practicable. This included raising some works with an urgent priority, for example the deep clean, and more major works to the kitchen and bathroom that had longer lead periods and timescales.
The landlord stated that it would learn from the issues she had experienced. Further, it explained it was reviewing its ME process and considering whether inspections should be completed closer to the exchange date, and if so, whether all parties should be present.
It said regarding her request for the arrears to be cleared in full, it recognised that the circumstances had had an impact on her both personally and financially. Therefore, it offered an increased amount of £600 in compensation as follows:
1. £200 for bed-bug treatment
2. £100 for food/entertainment
3. £300 for disruption and impact

Events following the landlord’s final response

The landlord completed the refurbishment of the bathroom and replacement of internal door and sill boards to windows on 3 February 2023. It installed the extractor fan on 6 February 2023.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 February 2023 and explained she was unhappy about the condition of the property at ME and length of time taken to replace the kitchen when it said it would “fast-track” this. She explained that during the works to the kitchen she had to take her children to cafes to feed them and washed clothes in the bath and she was unable to pay the rent resulting in rent arrears of £1400. The resident said she was unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaints process.
In response to our request for evidence, on 3 November 2023 the landlord listed the repairs undertaken at the property. It also stated:
1. Attempts were made to carry out the EPC however no access was gained.
2. The resident told its income team she was withholding rent due to the property being unhabitable. It agreed the property was uninhabitable before the deep clean due to the mess left by the outgoing tenant.

The landlord’s policies and obligations

The landlord’s ME policy requires the landlord to inspect properties prior to consent to highlight any repair issues that need to be rectified before an exchange is approved. It policy also states the property:
1. Must be reinspected prior to the exchange to make sure the conditions for consent have been met.
2. All parties to be made aware that they are taking the new property “as seen”. It has no responsibility to reinstate fixtures or fittings that had been removed or to repair damage caused by the current tenant.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property, installations and internal walls, doors, ceilings, doors and door frames, plasterwork.
The landlord’s repair policy includes timeframes in which it will respond to repairs – priority 1 repairs within 24 hours, priority 2 repairs within 28 days and priority 3 repairs within 63 days.
The landlord is obliged to keep the property free from mould and damp and fit for human habitation as per the Homes Act 2018.
Up to 30 September 2022 the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process. It included an informal ‘pre-complaint’ stage that it termed ‘Get it Sorted’ (GIS). From 1 October 2022 it operated a 2-stage complaint process which required the landlord to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days, provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.

In her complaint the resident said that the property was uninhabitable at the time of the ME. This Service recognises that under the landlord’s ME process, the resident agreed to accept the property in the present condition or “as seen” at the time of viewing it.
However, the landlord was required to inspect the property to highlight any issues or damage. The landlord inspected the property on 17 June 2022 and the report provided to this Service indicates no outstanding repairs were identified therefore there was no re-inspection prior to the ME which took place less than 4 weeks later.
The landlord’s records show issues reported by the resident at ME included damp and mould, an “overpowering” smell of ammonia, rotten kitchen flooring (with holes), rubbish left and items “fly tipped” in the back garden as well as dog faeces. It noted at the time the difference in condition than at the inspection. The landlord has acknowledged to this Service that the property was in an ‘uninhabitable’ condition at the time of the ME due to ‘the mess’ left by the outgoing tenant. It is accepted that rubbish and items fly tipped in the garden by the outgoing tenant as well as excessive dog urine on the internal floors may account for a decline in the overall condition of the property following the inspection. Whilst this could not have been foreseen by the landlord, given it did not re-inspect prior to the ME, an agreement with the outgoing tenant about what items would be left or taken and the expected condition of property at exchange may have prevented these issues, however, there is no evidence of this or of the landlord discussing such with the resident.
Furthermore, whilst it may not have been possible for the landlord to complete a thorough inspection while the outgoing resident was still in occupation, some of the repairs reported by the resident at exchange, for example the rotten kitchen floor, faulty doors and the poor condition of the kitchen, ought to have been evident at the time of the landlord’s inspection.
This Service considers that good practice would be for the landlord to have flagged such disrepair issues during the inspection, yet there is no detail given about the condition of the property in the report. This only consists of 11 poorly-lit photos.
Therefore, whilst the landlord inspected the property prior to the ME in line with its policy, there was a lack of detail in its inspection report and it failed to identify areas of the property that were in a poor state of repair or take steps to ensure the outgoing tenant understood its expectations regarding the condition the property was to be left in. These issues constitute maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of the property and repairs needed following the mutual exchange

In her formal complaint, the resident said areas of the property were not to the appropriate standard and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and issues raised since the ME. She asked the landlord to write off her rent arrears.
In response to the resident’s above mentioned reports at the time of the ME, the landlord raised an emergency inspection for the same day when its repairs inspector confirmed the issues reported by the resident. Given the nature of her reports, its prompt inspection of the property was appropriate as it showed it was taking the situation seriously.
Regardless of the resident having agreed to accept the property “as seen” at the viewing as per its ME policy, due to the number and nature of the issues identified, it is clear that the property was uninhabitable at the time of the ME. This would have put the landlord on notice to take urgent steps to bring the property up to an appropriate standard. It was aware the resident had 2 young children in her household, one of whom was autistic. Therefore, we would expect it to prioritise the urgent issues and repairs in order minimise any health and safety risks. Following the initial inspection the landlord arranged for a deep clean of the property which took place on 15 July 2022. By promptly organising a deep clean in order to improve hygiene and cleanliness, the landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord then appropriately carried out mould treatments at the property on 26 July 2022 after a further inspection. It also agreed to replace the kitchen and it quickly raised a job for an asbestos survey in preparation for this. In view of the rotten kitchen floorboards, tiles falling from the wall and damaged work surfaces, the landlord’s offer to replace the kitchen was appropriate.
After approving a quote for the new kitchen on 16 August 2022, this work was completed by 21 October 2022, indicating only a minor delay by the landlord in meeting the target of 18 October 2022. Nonetheless, given the resident had no use of the kitchen, it is reasonable to expect it to offer compensation for the loss of amenity, however it did not do so which is a failing.
Due to concerns subsequently raised by the resident about the poor condition of the bathroom including tiles falling off and further mould growth, the landlord agreed to upgrade the bathroom and it advised the resident of this in its stage 2 response. Its records show that on 21 December 2022 it approved a quote for this work and that the upgrade was completed on 3 February 2023.
As the kitchen and bathroom replacements are considered ‘major works’ it is reasonable to expect longer timescale. As such in applying its priority 3 timescale of 63 days, the landlord acted reasonably.
It is acknowledged that during the months after the ME, the landlord was also responding to a number of minor repairs as and when they were brought to its attention. This Service recognises that due the number of repairs being undertaken, it is reasonable to expect some minor delays by the landlord in meeting its timescales. However, it is clear the length of some delays was unreasonable. For example, the resident raised at the outset an issue with the internal doors not closing. Although it initially raised a repair for this on 25 July 2022 it is not clear what, if any repairs the landlord carried out to the doors following this. Its records show that 5 months later, on 21 December 2023, it raised a job to replace the doors, indicating any repair previously provided had not resolved the issue. Although the replacement doors were fitted by 3 February 2023, given the 2 young children in the household, one of whom was a baby at the time of the ME, we would expect the landlord to have prioritised resolving this matter sooner. The 7 month timeframe taken by the landlord significantly exceeded its own timescales and indicates a failure to take into account the resident’s circumstances whilst handling this concern.
In her stage 2 complaint the resident pointed out that no extractor fan had been installed as part of the kitchen renewal. Extractor fans in the kitchen are important as they eliminate odours and steam whilst cooking to ensure a hygienic kitchen environment and to minimise condensation building up which can lead to mould growth. The resident also said that there had been new mould growth in the kitchen since the installation. This is likely due to the combination of no extractor fan and because she was unable to open the windows as she reported these had been “painted shut”. In its final complaint response, the landlord told her that it had ordered a humidity fan and also that it had measured the windows for replacement. The landlord’s repair records confirm this and show that a fan was installed on 6 February 2023 and that on 11 February 2023 it raised a job to replace the windows at the property. This action taken by the landlord was reasonable, although the lack of any fan fitted as part of the earlier kitchen renewal was a failing.
Although the landlord cleared items left in the loft, it did not take steps to remove items left in the garden within a reasonable timeframe. This Service recognises the outgoing tenant is usually responsible for disposing of items and rubbish. However, as some of the items left in the garden, for example fridge freezers, gas canisters and paint tubs posed a risk to health and safety, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to remove these. Despite the resident raising this on multiple occasions and it assuring the resident in its complaint response that it was ‘looking into this’, it did not address this issue during the 5 months after the ME up to the landlord’s final response. This Service is mindful that the resident reported rats in the rear garden at ME which would have been enticed by the presence of rubbish. In November 2023 the landlord told us it had removed items in the garden although other rubbish in the area at the end of the garden was “now being sorted”. Given that it promised the resident to remove items during the complaint process, its ongoing failure to do so is unreasonable.
This Service is mindful that, as well as the resident reporting rats in the garden at time of the ME, a month later on 15 August 2022 she reported rats in the kitchen that had accessed via the holes in the floorboards at that time. The landlord attended on one occasion and put bait under the floorboards. The lack of any further reports by the resident indicates this action resolved the issue, as such its response was reasonable.
The resident also reported a bed bug problem on 27 September 2022 which given the proximity to the ME, the landlord was responsible to resolve. The landlord, however, told the resident it was unable to provide treatment for several weeks, prompting her to arrange the first bed bug treatment herself. Its response was inadequate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord later offered to compensate her £200 for the cost incurred of this treatment and it also arranged for a second treatment a month after she first reported this issue. This appeared to resolve the problem. Whilst this went some way to putting right its failing, it did no offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused which would have been appropriate.
Regarding the resident’s concern that the energy performance certificate had expired, in its response it explained as it did not view a ME as a new let or a new tenancy there was no requirement to complete an EPC. Whilst we accept that in the circumstances the landlord may not have been under any obligation to renew the EPC, as it had expired 2 months prior to the ME (May 2022), good practise would have been for the landlord to have renewed this at the time of the ME. Furthermore, whilst it agreed to update the EPC following the resident’s complaint and booked a survey in December 2022, the landlord told us this not go ahead due to an issue with access. This Service has not seen evidence to verify there was an with issue access. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the landlord contact the resident to arrange a suitable time to carry out the EPC survey.
In summary, following the concerns raised at the time of the ME, the landlord undertook extensive repairs over the subsequent months, in accordance with its obligations. However, there were unreasonable delays in providing an extractor fan, replacing the internal doors and removing items in the garden and responding to the report of bedbugs. As such, it did not give due consideration to the resident’s personal circumstances in these instances. Also the compensation offered did not take into account that the property was uninhabitable until the deep clean on 18 July 2022. It also did not adequately reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and her children whilst the repairs were ongoing, or take into account the loss of amenity of the kitchen for approximately 13 weeks. Therefore, the redress provided by landlord did not resolve the complaint.
Bearing in mind the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £696.26 made up of:
1. £61.26 equivalent of 4 days rent (whilst the property was uninhabitable)
2. £235 for loss of amenity of kitchen (£25 x 13 weeks minus £100 offered during the complaints process)
3. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble

Complaint handling

The landlord dealt with the resident’s 12 August 2022 complaint regarding the service and repairs provided by the landlord under its informal ‘get it sorted’ stage.
The Ombudsman’s updated Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was published on 9 March 2022, and included guidance warning landlords against the use of informal pre-complaint stage. As such its use of an informal stage at this time was not in line with the Code.
The landlord’s complaint record of 18 August 2022 indicates its NM had a conversation with the resident regarding resolving her complaint. However it is unclear from this record how it intended to resolve all the concerns raised, for example the items left in the garden by the outgoing resident or regarding the landlord’s communication around this. The failure to respond to all concerns is evidence of poor complaint handling. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining its actions in writing to the resident which was inappropriate and led to the resident raising a further complaint 2 months later.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling concerns about the condition of the property and repairs needed in the property following the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not highlight any repairs or issues with the property during the inspection prior to the exchange when it ought to have.
Whilst the landlord undertook a series of repairs following the ME, there were some unreasonable delays with addressing issues and it did not take into account the impact on the resident of having no use of her kitchen whilst works were being completed.
It dealt with one of the resident’s formal complaints informally with no written response provided or resolution of all of the issues, which was inappropriate.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident compensation of £1,146.26 (in addition to the £600 provided during the complaints process) made of:
  1. £350.00 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in respect to failings whilst handling the mutual exchange.
  2. £696.26 for distress, inconvenience, time, trouble and loss of amenity in respect to failings whilst handling concerns about the condition of the property and repairs needed following the ME.
  3. £100.00 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in respect to failings whilst handling the associated complaint.
  4. This money should be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any arrears that she may owe the landlord.
If not already done so, contact the resident to arrange an EPC survey.
Reviews the records it has for the resident to ensure it has vulnerabilities in her household properly recorded.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord must:
1. If not already done so, arrange for the removal any items at the end part of the garden, as agreed.
2. Provide evidence of the review of its ME process, as referenced in its final response dated 22 December 2022. This should consider whether inspections should be completed closer to the exchange date and whether all parties should be present.
Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.