London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202220367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220367

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 October 2024

Amended 7 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for kitchen and bathroom works.
2. Formal complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She has lived in the 2-bedroom property since 2015. The landlord acquired the property from another housing association in 2018. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but she has communicated concerns around her mental health with it dating back to 2019.
The resident’s kitchen was scheduled for renewal as part of the landlord’s planned works program and it commenced work in November 2017. The resident said the landlord’s contractors did a poor job and did not complete the works. In April 2018 contractors re-attended but, again, they did not follow the job through to completion. The resident reported that the kitchen units, worktop, and cooker had been damaged, units were missing, the tiled flooring had not been laid, and sockets and wires had not been secured.
In February 2019 the landlord agreed to renew the resident’s bathroom and its contractors commenced work in the following months. During these works, the resident reported that contractors had caused a flood, damaging her living room, and had created a hole in her bathroom wall which went through to her bedroom. The resident also raised concerns about the conduct of the contractors. She reported that she had been left with holes under the bath that needed filling, the bath was not secured to the walls, the vinyl floor had not been laid, the toilet was faulty, separate taps had been fitted on the sink rather than a mixer tap as agreed, the tiles were uneven, and grout and tiles were falling off the walls and had scratched her bath.
In May 2019 the landlord allocated a surveyor to project manage the works through to completion. The resident and landlord agreed a scope of works over the proceeding months, but the resident felt unable to commence them. This was due to stress she was experiencing because of the situation and her fears that the landlord would not complete the works to an appropriate standard.
In July 2020 she asked the landlord to start the bathroom works but it deemed these non-essential and said it could not do so due to covid-19 restrictions.
The resident contacted the landlord in May 2021 and explained that works had remained outstanding in her kitchen and bathroom for years. It allocated her another surveyor to oversee the works, but there was no progression.
On 22 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had made several attempts to engage it in order to resolve the issues with her bathroom and kitchen but had gotten nowhere. She said she had been without a fully functioning kitchen and bathroom for years and explained that she had been unable to cook a meal. The landlord logged this as a complaint but there is no evidence it responded formally.
The resident made a further complaint on 29 June 2022. She outlined the history of the works dating back to 2017 and the impact the situation had on her. She described ‘living in hell’ and said the stress it had caused had destroyed her family and resulted in her son moving out. She explained that she had no cooker and had relied on a camping stove and microwave to cook her meals, as well as take aways, for the past few years. She said she had covered the costs of redecoration to her living room and bedroom following damage caused by its bathroom contractors. She asked the landlord to provide the new bathroom and kitchen she said it had promised her, and to compensate her for years of distress.
The landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the bathroom on 12 October 2022. Following this, work was scheduled to take place over 3 days starting on 21 November 2022. However, when the operative attended he said he was just there to fill the holes under the bath. The resident refused the works until the landlord confirmed that it would complete them according to the scope its surveyor had outlined, which she said included a new sink and toilet. She shared that she was recovering from surgery and did not need the stress.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2022. It outlined the works it would do to the bathroom as follows:
1. Apply plywood to the floor and lay vinyl flooring.
2. Fit a bath timber frame and close the gaps between the bath and walls.
3. Retile around the toilet.
4. Fill gaps below the bath.
5. Apply sealant to the toilet pedestal.
6. Fit a splashback around the bath.

It confirmed it would not replace the sink or toilet as it considered them fit for purpose.

The resident responded the same day and denied that she had refused works. She said the surveyor had agreed to replace the faulty toilet and fit a sink with mixer taps. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the taps its contractors had removed during works in 2019. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email as an escalation of her complaint on 21 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 January 2023. It maintained its position with regards the scope of bathroom works and said the resident should contact it if she wished for these to go ahead. It said it needed to inspect the kitchen and had tried to call her to arrange this on 11 and 12 January 2023 but had been unable to reach her. It said she would need to evidence that her bills had increased beyond inflation to consider reimbursement. It offered compensation of £1,640, comprised of:
1. £100 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
2. £100 for time and effort.
3. £1,440 for distress and inconvenience, at £40 per month for 36 months.
Following the response, the landlord offered an additional £174.99 as reimbursement for a microwave oven at £124.99, and £50 for take aways.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the kitchen and bathroom works are outstanding, though it has since secured the sockets and wires. She would like the landlord to complete the works and install a new sink/mixer tap, and toilet. She seeks additional compensation for the distress she has experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Within her complaint, the resident referenced issues with the landlord’s handling of the works dating back to 2017. She referred to previous complaints she had made about this, but it is not clear that these complaints completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Nor were the complaints referred to this Service within the appropriate timeframe.
The Ombudsman must be satisfied that a landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to consider a complaint and resolve any associated issues internally before we intervene. If a resident is dissatisfied with a landlord’s response to, or handling of, their complaint, they should bring it to the attention of this Service within 12 months. This is because with the passage of time evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
As a result, previous complaints about the kitchen and bathroom works fall outside the scope of this investigation. It is fair and appropriate for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the works following concerns the resident raised with it in May 2021. While we are unable to consider the circumstances around why the works had previously stalled, this Service appreciates the resident had been without a fully functioning kitchen and bathroom since 2017 and 2019, respectively. This context has been considered when assessing events from May 2021 onwards.

Handling of requests for kitchen and bathroom works

Under the terms of the tenancy and section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations for the supply of water, electricity, and sanitation, in repair and working order. Installations for sanitation include sinks, baths, and toilets. In its ‘routine repairs policy’, the landlord further specifies that it is responsible for internal fixtures. It states that it will replace key components, such as kitchens and bathrooms, as their condition declines through its programme of planned works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 and explained that it had not completed her kitchen and bathroom following planned works. The landlord responded appropriately by allocating a surveyor to explore and progress the works.
The landlord and resident provided copies of correspondence from late June 2021, in which the surveyor explored the resident’s availability for an inspection. The resident explained that she had started a new job and did not confirm any dates. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete repairs at the soonest mutually agreed date. The landlord was therefore not at fault for any initial delay in inspecting.
The surveyor explained that she was not able to discuss the history or outcome of previous complaints with the resident and advised her to make another complaint if she was dissatisfied. The resident was upset by this as she felt she had exhausted the complaints process and the issues remained unresolved. The resident’s frustration was understandable, but it was reasonable for the surveyor to clarify the parameters of her role and direct the resident to the complaints team, as the relevant department to consider her complaints.
There was no further correspondence between the resident and the surveyor and instead the resident directed her queries to a customer services officer, who asked her to send pictures of the kitchen/bathroom. Given the resident was working and had limited availability, this was a sensible way for it to quickly gain an understanding of the status of the rooms.
The landlord’s records show that it scheduled an electrical inspection on 25 August 2021, but the resident cancelled this as she had ‘no idea’ what the appointment was for. The resident had informed the landlord that her sockets were hanging off the wall when she contacted it in May 2021, and it was appropriate that it investigated this further. It acted fairly by leaving a message on the resident’s phone asking her to rebook the appointment if she remained concerned. However, it should have given her adequate information about the nature of the appointment.
On 25 August 2021, the resident expressed disappointment that the officer had passed the pictures she had sent on to the surveyor and said she did not want her to deal with the matter. It took until 30 September 2021, over a month, before the officer advised that a new surveyor would deal with the works. This was not appropriately responsive. It had now been 4 months since the resident contacted the landlord and reported the issues.
The new surveyor contacted the resident the same day but she missed the call and was unable to return it. She contacted the landlord on 30 October 2021 and it told her someone would update her, but there is no evidence this happened. Ultimately, the resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2022 asking for an update and complaining that no one had been in touch. It was now 2 months since the case had been allocated to the new surveyor and, other than 1 attempted phone call, there is no evidence the landlord had acted on the resident’s concerns. This delay was unnecessary and to the ongoing detriment of the resident.
The landlord logged the resident’s email as a complaint and, on 8 December 2021, it told her it had requested an inspection and would be in touch. The complaint had been allocated to the planning team who had historically coordinated the works. However, the officer from the planning team passed it on to the repairs team. She noted the issue was with the resident’s floor and she was not yet due for a new kitchen, so she considered repairs to be sufficient.
In fact, this was only part of the issue. The officer’s actions suggested she had not properly read the complaint in which the resident was clear that works were outstanding to both her bathroom and kitchen. It also highlighted that this had resulted from unfinished planned works.
The case notes suggest it raised a job for a kitchen inspection on 13 December 2022, but there is no evidence it scheduled this, or that it took place. Instead, the resident received a text message saying a ‘repair’ had been booked for 15 February 2022. The resident expressed frustration that she had to wait 2 months for this appointment, noting that she would be spending another Christmas without a cooked meal. Despite this, it offered no explanation and did not bring the appointment forward.
This was compounded when she received a text message from the landlord on 14 February 2022, the day before the appointment, to clarify that a carpenter would be attending. Confused about why a carpenter was necessary, she cancelled the appointment, explaining that what she needed was for someone to authorise and commence kitchen and bathroom works. Following this there was no progress, resulting in the resident’s further complaint of June 2022.
The landlord’s internal notes suggest a lack of ownership of the issue throughout this period, with no team assuming responsibility, resulting in stasis. The resident directed her queries through a customer services officer who forwarded emails on to various teams. However, officers were unclear whether the issue sat with the repairs or planning team and, from the evidence provided, did little to act on the resident’s concerns and establish ownership. This was exacerbated by misinformation about the nature of the resident’s concerns, which was unacceptable given she had clearly and repeatedly communicated these. It meant it took the wrong action, adding to the resident’s frustration.
There were internal discussions throughout July and August 2022 about responsibility for the repairs and how they could be progressed. The landlord came to an agreement on 17 August 2022 that the repairs team would conduct the works, and the planning team would cover the costs. While this was a positive step forward, it had taken several weeks to arrive at this point, during which time the resident received no update and experienced no tangible progress.
Again, there was a further delay in the landlord booking the inspection. The notes suggest the landlord called the resident to schedule this at some point during September 2022 but was not able to get through. The surveyor then notified the resident he would attend on 12 October 2022. There was a period of nearly 2 months between it authorising the repairs team to progress the works, and the inspection date. While it made 1 phone call, it could have done so more promptly, and made follow up attempts. Its efforts to book this in do not demonstrate due urgency.
During the visit, the surveyor inspected the bathroom, but not the kitchen. Again, the resident had been clear in her complaint that the issues were with both rooms. She had also been clear that it was difficult for her to take time off work, so it would have been appropriate for it to inspect both rooms at the same time. The landlord’s internal notes suggest it did not do so due to a miscommunication. The surveyor said he had been unaware of the need for kitchen works.
Again, this evidenced poor internal communication and a lack of proper oversight and ownership. We would expect the surveyor to have been properly briefed on the issues prior to attendance. While the landlord’s records show that discussions about the works were ongoing between several teams/individuals, no one identified that a job had only been raised for a bathroom inspection.
The resident said the surveyor confirmed that works would include a replacement sink and toilet. While there are no records of what they discussed during the visit, this corresponds with the update he provided to the complaint handler, in which he said it would renew the bathroom, other than the bath. He also later informed the complaint handler that his manager had not approved the full scope. Unfortunately, it did not communicate this to the resident prior to the operative’s visit in November 2022.
The Ombudsman understands that landlords have a finite amount of resources and must manage their funds appropriately. It is therefore reasonable that, where the landlord considers a fixture to be functional, or repairable, it need not replace it. This is also outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The resident claimed the toilet was faulty, noting that the seat had repeatedly broken and the cistern lid did not fit. The landlord’s internal notes suggest that, while it accepted it was not the correct cistern lid, it considered it to be functional. The landlord also said the resident was responsible for replacing the broken toilet seat. If the toilet seat was faulty or broke because of issues with the how the landlord installed the toilet, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that it replaces this and corrects any issues. Ultimately, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the toilet needs replacing or repairing, but an order has been made below with regards further investigation of these issues.
The resident accepted the sink was functional but maintained the landlord had removed her single mixer tap and replaced it with separate taps when carrying out bathroom works in 2019. She said it had done so against her wishes. She wanted a new sink with 1 hole and a mixer tap. Ultimately, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the landlord’s historic actions and agreements with regards the sink and taps. This Service is therefore unable to direct the landlord to replace them.
However, it accepts the landlord unduly raised the resident’s expectations by saying it would replace both the toilet and sink/taps as part of the works in November 2022. It should also have informed her that it had not approved these components prior to its operative attending. This would be fair and reasonable in most circumstances but was especially pertinent given the historic issues. While the Ombudsman makes no comment on the landlord’s prior handling of the works, it was clear the resident felt let down by it. She had reported that it had repeatedly broken agreements with regards the scope of works and it should have been sensitive to this.
The resident refused for the operative to commence work until they had sought clarity from the surveyor about what it would include. Despite telling her the surveyor would contact her, it was 8 days later, on 29 November 2022, before it explained that it would not proceed with renewal of the sink/toilet. The Ombudsman understands the surveyor was unavailable during this period but someone else should have updated the resident. She had taken time off work and did not know whether operatives would be returning on subsequent days.
The resident responded by saying that she felt so stressed she wanted to kill herself. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report that the situation had made her feel suicidal. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to contact the resident and learn more about their wellbeing and needs. The landlord has given no indication it took this report seriously, or that it offered support, or signposted the resident accordingly.
Further, the resident had been clear about the emotional turmoil the situation had caused and shared that she had sought psychological support previously. Despite this the landlord had no health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its properties and residents, including any health needs. This enables its staff to engage with residents accordingly and provide appropriate support where necessary. A recommendation has been made about this below.
The landlord reiterated its position with regards the bathroom in its initial complaint response. It did not respond to the other issues the resident had raised as part of her complaint, namely the condition of the kitchen, the conduct of previous contractors, and her allegation that they had damaged her living room and bathroom. Nor did it discuss its prior handling of the renewal works.
While, due to the passage of time, the landlord may have been unable to investigate historic issues, it should have explained this to the resident rather than leaving issues unaddressed. It would have been reasonable for it to consider how it had handled the works since the resident’s contact in May 2021, as per the scope of this investigation. It was unacceptable that it did not acknowledge the kitchen works at all, and worse still, that it did not act on this until January 2023 when it attempted to inspect.
In its final response the landlord said it had tried to book the inspection in January 2023 but had been unable to reach the resident. The records suggest there was some back and forth on this between 11 and 18 January 2023, but the resident and surveyor missed each other’s calls. The resident was willing for the inspection to take place and had asked that they arrange this by email. The landlord has not provided any records that suggest it made further efforts to book this in.
There is no evidence the landlord has inspected the kitchen or commenced works on the bathroom to date. This is despite a request from the resident in August 2023. She asked that it complete the works on which they had agreed while waiting for this Service to consider the complaint. The landlord did not act on this request, which was unreasonable and constituted a further missed opportunity for it to resolve issues for the resident.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £1,440 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused dating back 3 years, or 36 months. For the impact caused by its handling of the issues since May 2021, as per the focus of this investigation, we can conclude that it apportioned £800. This is comprised of £40 per month for 20 months, up to January 2023 when it issued its final response. This is in addition to the £100 it awarded for time and effort. While this is a significant sum, it is not considered sufficient redress for the detriment caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions.
The landlord also said the resident would need to evidence that her bills had increased beyond inflation for it to consider reimbursement. This was in response to the resident’s claim that her home had been colder due to having no tiles or vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. It is not clear whether the resident provided this information and whether it offered any further payment here. This Service cannot determine whether the lack of flooring impacted on the warmth of the house, nor therefore require further payment from the landlord on this.
Its offer of compensation provided some acknowledgement there had been failings in its handling of the issues. However, it provided no explanation of what it considered it had got wrong, and how it intended to learn from its mistakes. While in its response it said it understood and empathised with the distress caused, it did not demonstrate sufficient empathy or apology. This sentiment was echoed in internal correspondence, in which it referred to the resident as ‘difficult and demanding’.
The Ombudsman carried out a special investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which was published in January 2023. This found systemic issues with regards disrepair, including that staff were unclear or unfamiliar with their responsibilities. Residents suffered excessive delays, and there was internal confusion about the status of repairs. It also found the landlord was unable to demonstrate that its staff were following the code of conduct within its policy to “show they care about the resident, are committed to helping and can be trusted to do what they say they’ll do”. These issues all appeared within the landlord’s handling of this case.
In conclusion, there were multiple and repeat failings in the landlord’s handling of the works over this 20-month period. It did not act with due urgency and left the issue to drift. The landlord is a large organisation with multiple teams and in the process of establishing responsibility for the works it lost sight of the resident’s needs and its duty towards her. It required someone to proactively project manage the process which was not consistently the case. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and further strained what was an already fraught landlord/tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman cannot direct the landlord to renew the sink and toilet and appreciates works to the resident’s bathroom stalled from November 2022 because the resident did not wish to go ahead without these components. However, it was responsible for unreasonable delays prior to this and bears responsibility for mismanaging her expectations. It is also unacceptable that it did not inspect the kitchen throughout this period and that these works remain outstanding for the resident.
Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlords handling in this matter. It should be noted that a finding of severe maladministration would have been found if the landlord had not gone some way to address this issues by its offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations as part of the special investigation which the landlord has since implemented and are ongoing. This includes the development of colleague training on its obligations to vulnerable residents and empathetic resident communication. It is also undertaking work on its assurance processes so that it can measure and report on its performance regarding repairs.
As result, no further orders have been made on these issues. However, the landlord is encouraged to review this Service’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights and consider its recommendations. This Service understands that work is ongoing to ensure staff are recording any known vulnerabilities that residents have, and it should review its progress against this goal.
Further action is required for the landlord to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’ for the resident, in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord should pay further compensation of £800, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. This would bring the total compensation to £1,700. This is comprised of £1,600 for distress and inconvenience over the 20-month period (equal to £80 per month, which reflects the ‘high impact’ on the resident), and £100 for time and trouble.
The landlord should inspect the kitchen and toilet as a priority, according to the resident’s schedule. It should update this Service with the outcome of the inspection and the schedule of works. The works should include fitting a splashback in the bathroom. It included this in the works outlined at stage 1 but omitted this within its final response.
Finally, the landlord should write a letter of apology to the resident demonstrating that it has reckoned with the failures identified in this case and explaining how it will ensure it does not repeat these.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaint policy states that it will aim to resolve a complaint ‘there and then’, but where it cannot, it will refer it to the relevant department. It will respond in writing to the resident within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out standards for complaint handling.
The landlord logged the resident’s email of 22 November 2021 as a complaint. The records suggest it called the resident on 24 November 2021 and acknowledged and decided the complaint this day. There were no further notes of this call. The issues were far from resolved and it was not appropriate for it to ‘decide’ the complaint without investigation and a written response.
According to the records, the complaint remained open on the system and it told the resident it had raised an inspection and someone would be in touch. The resident chased the landlord for an update on several occasions over the following months, to no avail. The landlord’s internal records show there was confusion about which team the complaint sat with. It closed the complaint on its system in April 2022 without issuing a formal response.
The landlord did not act according to its policy and the Code in its handling of this complaint, to the detriment of the resident. Her complaint gave the landlord an opportunity to take stock of, and remedy, the situation for her. It failed to do so, leaving her with little hope that it would undertake the works and greatly undermining her faith in it.
The resident made a further complaint on 29 June 2022, which the landlord responded to formally on 29 November 2022. This was after 108 working days, which was significantly outside of the 10-day timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that the complaint handler was waiting for it to establish which team would inspect and progress the repair. However, the delay was unacceptable. Throughout this period there is no evidence it explained the reasons for the delay or managed the resident’s expectations about when it would respond.
As discussed, the stage 1 response was inadequate. It did not address all complaint points, including the outstanding kitchen works, and offered no apology or compensation.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction in response to the complaint, but it only logged the escalation following a request from this Service on 20 December 2022. The resident did not specifically request that it escalate her complaint, but her dissatisfaction was evident and it should have explored this with her.
Upon acknowledgement of the complaint, the resident asked if the complaint handler would meet with her to discuss her concerns. The landlord declined this and insisted they communicate in writing, to ensure clarity and provide accountability. The resident was rightly confused by this as the landlord had called her only the previous day. The landlord should have facilitated communication according to the resident’s preferences and its ability to do so.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 16 January 2023. This was 32 working days since the resident had escalated the complaint, and 16 working days since it had logged it. In its final response it offered £100 for this delay, which is considered fair.
However, it failed to acknowledge or compensate the resident for the significant delays at stage 1. Nor has it provided remedy for its failure to consider her initial complaint. Considering these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made. Its compensation policy suggests a maximum payment of £200 is appropriate where the complaint has been delayed by 3 months, with corresponding delays in repairs. Given there were delays across 2 complaints and the resident had to wait a year before she received a written response, more is appropriate. The landlord should compensate the resident a further £250, bringing the total award to £350.
The Ombudsman understands the landlord has implemented quality assurance checks with complaint handling performance reviewed on a quarterly basis by its Governance Board and Resident Service Board. It is feeding back on findings related to individual cases with individuals and managers. Staff have received refresher training and are set complaint handling objectives. These interventions followed recommendations made as part of the special investigation conducted by this Service under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord has recently implemented these measures and work remains in progress. As a result, no further orders have been made on these issues. However, the landlord should apologise for the detriment caused to the resident by failures in its handling of this complaint and pay further compensation as outlined.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for kitchen and bathroom works.
2. Formal complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £2,050 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,700 for failures in its handling of her requests for works, and
  2. £350 for complaint handling failures.

If it has paid the £1,000 previously offered to the resident during the complaints process, it can deduct the sum from this total.

Write a letter of apology to the resident demonstrating that it has recognised the failures identified in this case and explaining how it intends to ensure it does not repeat these. This should be from a senior member of staff and it should provide a copy of the letter to this Service.
Inspect the kitchen and toilet with consideration to the resident’s schedule. It should then confirm in writing to the resident the schedule of works and timescales to complete these repairs. As a minimum, the works should include those outlined in the stage 1 response. A copy should be provided to this Service also within 4 weeks.
Review how it communicates information about repair appointments. Residents should be clear about the nature of the appointment and what work its contractors/operatives are attending to do. It should update this Service with how it can, or has since, addressed this issue.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Reviews this Service’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights and considers its recommendations.
2. Reviews the measures it has taken to ensure staff are recording any known vulnerabilities that residents have.