A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202417347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417347

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 June 2025

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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Heating throughout the property.
2. Smells and contaminated water from the kitchen and bathroom taps.
3. The temperature of the water from the bath and shower taps.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the associated complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 22 October 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a terraced house. The landlord has recorded the resident has ongoing depression and anxiety, which revolved around him previously sleeping rough and living in extreme circumstances.
The resident’s support worker complained to the landlord on his behalf on 4 August 2023 (Complaint 1). In their email the support worker said:
1. The water from the kitchen and bathroom tap had black specks in it and was “not drinkable”. The landlord had not fixed this, despite the repair being described as an emergency and being raised a month earlier.
2. The kitchen tap had a foul smell which was “preventing him [the resident] from sleeping”.
3. The bathroom and shower taps were not producing any cold water. The landlord had repaired this after “weeks of chasing”.
4. The heating was not producing adequate warmth, particularly in the winter.
5. The resident had informed him, that he had been chasing the landlord for 2 years, but it “had not done anything”. The support worker added that the resident was concerned that he would become severely unwell.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. It said it had attended the property and completed the outstanding repair requests. It confirmed it had spoken to its contractor to remind it of the expected service levels. The resident responded the same day to advise the landlord that he was unhappy as the foul water issue was not fixed. He said he felt like no one was interested.
It is unclear what prompted it, but the landlord texted the resident in October 2023 to query whether the repairs were fixed. It stated that it did not receive a reply, so it concluded the matter was resolved.
The resident escalated the complaint on or around 19 April 2024. He explained that the foul smell from the kitchen and toilet was “unpleasant” and a potential health hazard. He stated the “dirty water” coming from the bathroom sink and shower was unsanitary. He felt this caused him to develop a skin condition. He added that the coldness in the property was causing dampness to develop and as a result he became concerned about his quality of life and health.
The landlord also issued a separate stage 1 response (Complaint 2) on 23 April 2024. It is unclear what prompted this or when a new complaint was raised. However, the response was in relation to temperatures within the property and “insufficient heating and radiators”. Within this stage 1 response, the landlord stated it had carried out a heat assessment of the living room and bedroom in 2023. It stated it upgraded both radiators and they were functioning correctly. It further stated it would carry out a heat assessment of the kitchen, toilet and hallway.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 on 25 July 2024. It acknowledged its delay in providing the response and stated it had experienced difficulties in contacting the resident. In relation to the repairs, it said:
1. It had incorrectly marked the repairs as complete in 2023 and apologised for this.
2. As a result of the poor service that residents were receiving, it had changed contractors.
3. It had contacted the resident on 18 October 2023 to ask if the repairs were completed. Because the resident did not respond, it assumed they were resolved.
4. It had re-raised the jobs as urgent repairs since. It visited the property on 8 April 2024 and replaced the pipework under the kitchen. On 25 April and 31 May 2024, it attempted to complete the remaining repairs, but the resident was not at home.
5. On 2, 9, and 18 July 2024, it reconfigured and rerouted all waste pipework and added anti vac near the valves. It replaced the kitchen tap and the tap connections for improved water flow. It said it suspected that the hot water pressure needed to be balanced to allow temperature control. It made a further appointment with a gas contractor to resolve this.
6. It said it would arrange to visit the property within the next 10 days.
7. It offered compensation of £150 which comprised of:
  1. £50 for the quality of work done during the previous year’s repair as it was not completed correctly.
  2. £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
The resident referred his complaint to us as he remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to his concerns. The resident has said the repairs relating to the smell, the contaminated water and the heating in his flat are still outstanding. The complaint became one we could investigate on 27 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s response to his repairs affected his health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
After the complaints process ended, the resident reported his toilet was leaking and he had a broken window. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint up to the landlord issuing its final response in July 2024. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement. The resident can raise any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord.
The resident has advised that he wants to move to a different property. The remedies that we make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, as far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. These include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. It is not within our powers to order the landlord to permanently rehouse a resident as this would not be putting them back in the position they would have been. The resident may wish to discuss this directly with the landlord to establish what options are available to him.

Record keeping

As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide copies of its records relevant to the resident’s complaint. We requested inspection reports, repair logs and any correspondence relating to the repairs and its findings.
The repairs logs we have been provided with suggest issues with the landlord’s record keeping practices. The issues identified include:
1. An absence of information. While the selection of the records we have been provided set out that 4 jobs were raised, only one entry contains a sufficient level of detail. There is no information in relation to the remaining 3 jobs and it is therefore unclear what they were in relation to and what action was taken by the landlord.
2. A lack of clarity around when issues were reported and responded to. The log we have been provided with sets out detail for 2024. However, the landlord referred to actions taken in 2023 when responding to the complaint. It is unclear whether corresponding contemporaneous records do not exist, or if the landlord failed to provide them in response to our request.
3. An absence of any contemporaneous information relating to calls. Throughout his complaint the resident had made reference to the number of calls he had made over the years. The landlord failed to address this when responding to the complaint. As we have not been provided with any evidence relating to calls, it is again unclear whether this evidence exists, or if the landlord has failed to provide it.
Clear record keeping is a core function of repair and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to us when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and contemporary records, including residents’ reports of repairs, and its subsequent response, actions, and reasoning.
The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.” The repairs were reported in 2023 around the time the landlord completed a self assessment against this spotlight report in May 2023. We would therefore have reasonably expected the record keeping to be of a higher standard. As such, we will order the landlord to carry out a case review in relation to its record keeping processes for this case.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has limited its ability to provide evidence of the actions it took, and it missed the opportunity to demonstrate its actions were reasonable. Poor record keeping also hampered our assessment of its handling of the repairs and contributed to the service failings identified below. As a result, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

The heating throughout the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of heating water. These obligations are also set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will:
1. Complete “emergency make safe” repairs within 4 hours of the first report and fully complete emergency repairs within 24 hours of the first report.
2. Complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
3. Aim to fast-track repairs for the most vulnerable customers wherever it reasonably can in line with its prioritisation policy.
When the resident raised his complaint, he said the issues had been ongoing for 2 years. Given the lack of detail in the repairs log, it has not been possible for us to establish when the report was first made. However, the landlord did not dispute that the issue had been ongoing for some time when it responded to the complaint.
On notification of the issue, the landlord should reasonably have inspected the property and sought to determine whether there was a problem with the heating supply and what action was required to resolve it. The records do not demonstrate that it took such action. This is not in line with its repairs policy and is a failing.
As the landlord’s records were not accurate, it led to it incorrectly stating a repair had been completed when it responded to the complaint at stage 1 in August 2023. The resident advised that the issues were ongoing when he escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. However, the landlord failed to address his concerns.
It is noted that Complaint 2 was raised around the time the resident escalated Complaint 1. From what we have seen, Complaint 2 related to concerns about a “cold flat”. The stage 1 response for Complaint 2 was issued on 24 April 2024 (before the stage 2 response to Complaint 1). It is unclear why the landlord opened a new complaint when it should reasonably have provided a response in relation to the heating at stage 2 of Complaint 1. That it did not was a failing. We have therefore assessed how it responded at stage 1 of Complaint 2 and whether its overall response to the matter was appropriate.
In the stage 1 response for Complaint 2, the landlord confirmed it carried out a heat assessment of the living room and bedroom in 2023. It stated it upgraded both radiators and they were functioning correctly. The complaint handling has been considered further below. However, the landlord has not provided us with the heat assessment reports, so we are not able to comment on what its conclusions were in relation to this, or what work it carried out and whether this was reasonable.
The stage 1 response to Complaint 2 also set out that the gas team advised it would carry out a heat assessment of the kitchen, toilet, and hallway. It advised there was no obligation to install radiators in toilets or kitchens and there may not be space to install one, but it would decide after a heat assessment. This was reasonable as there is no obligation on the landlord to install additional heating within a property unless there is a clear, identified need. If no such need is identified, the obligation under the tenancy agreement is to maintain the existing system for heating. Nevertheless, we have seen no evidence that the assessment took place.
An internal note from 23 July 2024 stated the landlord wanted to plan a joint visit with the gas team to address the temperature matters. It had noted that the resident was concerned about the lack of heating and proposed it carry out a full inspection of the property. While it was an appropriate course of action, this was not a timely response because the resident raised his complaint in 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider expediting the matter considering how long it had been ongoing.
In an internal email on 19 August 2024, the landlord said 2 radiators were missing, and the resident refused to have them fitted in the hallway and bathroom during a visit on 26 July 2024. We have not been provided with any further information in relation to this. Internal notes suggest there was an issue with space for the radiators. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to progress these works given that the radiators were identified as being missing. It is unclear what the resident’s specific concerns about the heating are, however, he is encouraged to work with the landlord so that the matter can be resolved without further delay.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature in his flat was not reasonable. While some actions were taken in response to his reports, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted in a timely manner. The evidence suggests that some level of assessment was undertaken to evaluate the conditions within the property. However, the evidence does not demonstrate what this was, the outcome of it and whether the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action in response. As a result, we have found maladministration.
The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation to the resident which comprised of £50 for “the quality of the work done last year”. Given the number of repairs issues raised, the landlord should reasonably have provided a breakdown for how much compensation had been apportioned in respect of each repair. As it did not do so, it has not been possible to establish whether this amount was reached fairly taking into account all of the circumstances of the complaint.
Given the failings we have identified, and with consideration to our guidance on remedies, the landlord should pay the resident £250. This replaces the landlord’s offer and takes into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and the lengthy delay involved in carrying out the relevant investigations and assessments to complete the repairs.

Smells and contaminated water from the kitchen and bathroom taps

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water. These obligations are also set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies water contaminated by bacteria, chemicals, or other pollutants to be a hazard. The landlord should assess and rate hazards accordingly. It is responsible for carrying out timely and appropriate repairs. However, there is a lack of evidence to show how the landlord responded to this repair in 2023. As a result, it has not been possible to establish, what the landlord did and whether it responded according to its policies and its legal obligations. This is not appropriate.
The resident’s support worker raised the issue of smells and contamination from the taps in the complaint of 2 August 2023. As noted above, there is no record of when the resident first reported this repair, however, he said it had been a longstanding issue. As above, the landlord marked this job as complete in error and no action was taken until 5 April 2024 when a second job was raised. It is unclear what prompted this, but the evidence suggests it may have been in communication with the resident around Complaint 2. Nevertheless, the landlord raised the job as a standard priority, and it attended the property on 8 April 2024. The evidence shows it was later upgraded to an urgent job. The landlord’s repair log stated there was an ongoing issue with “back surge” and there was a sewer smell when the sink was used. The operative renewed the waste pipework and the trap under the sink. It noted follow up work was required. However, the repairs log did not explain what the further work was.
At this point, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess and test the water quality to satisfy itself it did not pose a hazard. The evidence provided does not show this was done, which is concerning. The resident had told the landlord that the water was not drinkable. He also advised that he was suffering from a skin condition which he felt was a result of the water. Given that the repairs issues had been outstanding for a minimum of 8 months at that time the landlord should have done more to ensure the water supply was safe and that the resident had been provided with reassurance. That it did not was a failing and a missed opportunity.
The landlord raised another urgent work order on 25 April 2024. It sent the resident a text message to confirm it would attend that afternoon. It is unclear what work it planned to do on this visit. However, the resident was not at home, so the operative left a card. Given the short notice that had been provided, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to rearrange the appointment. It did not. The evidence suggests that it intended to do so but it was not processed. This was a failing.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 30 May 2024, but was unsuccessful. Its internal notes show that it considered it may need to send out a surveyor to assess the work needed once it had contacted the resident. The landlord raised a further work order on 31 May 2024. It was categorised as urgent. While there is no information about what work or repair this related to in the repair log, the other evidence suggests it was potentially related to the quality of the water supply. The contractor attempted to attend the property on the same day, but again the resident was not at home. This was understandable given the appointment was raised on such short notice.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s support worker on 1 June 2024. It said it had requested a further repair request to investigate the smells, but it wanted to establish contact with the resident to arrange this. This was overall reasonable in the circumstances.
Further to this, the landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2024. It explained it had tried to contact him and despite limited information it had raised an urgent repair. It asked the resident how it could accommodate him and asked him to contact it. Again, this was appropriate, given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It showed the landlord was committed to attempt the repair, despite its difficulties in establishing contact with the resident.
The landlord visited the property on 2, 9 and 18 July 2024. The evidence suggests that the plumber assessed the pipework and quality of the water supply to the bathroom and the kitchen. It reconfigured and rerouted all the waste pipework, it added anti vac near the valves, and it replaced the kitchen tap and its connections. While this was reasonable, this action should have taken place sooner and not nearly a year after the resident first raised a complaint about the matter.
The landlord said the blockages of fat in the kitchen sink had been removed and it considered the issue fixed. However, the resident has informed us that the issues are persisting. The surveyor who visited the property after the stage 2 response recommended that the landlord carry out a closed-circuit television (CCTV) survey of the drains. It is unclear whether this has been actioned. As such, we have ordered the landlord to discuss the matter further with the resident and establish whether a CCTV survey is required.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of smells emanating from the taps and possible water contamination was poor. As a result, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. Its failures included:
1. Incorrectly marking the repair as complete in 2023 which resulted in no action being taken for approximately 8 months.
2. Not completing the necessary investigations and repairs in a timely manner. While it is noted that investigations into such matters can take some time, the landlord was not proactive in its approach.
3. Not considering whether the water supply should be tested given the concerns that were raised by the resident. The landlord did not dispute that there was an issue with the supply, and it is unclear why it decided not to ensure that the water supply was clean and safe.
4. Not acknowledging what went wrong and appropriately putting things right during its handling of the complaint.
As previously noted, the landlord offered the resident a total of £150 to acknowledge its failures in relation to all the repair issues raised in his complaint. The quality of the water was potentially a serious hazard and the landlord’s response to this was not adequate. Even in the absence of a breakdown, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate.
In the circumstances, the landlord should pay a further £600 compensation in recognition of the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by the failings. This amount is proportionate for failings that have caused significant impact on the resident. This is an appropriate remedy taking into account the circumstances of the case and the failings that have been identified.

The temperature of the water from the bath and shower taps

The resident’s support worker relayed the concerns about a lack of cold water in the bathroom when raising the formal complaint. As noted above, there is no record of when the resident first reported this repair, but the evidence suggests this was also longstanding. There is also no supporting evidence to show what work the landlord did in 2023, if any, to try to fix this issue.
After the resident’s escalation request, the landlord began its investigations into his reported repairs in 2024. It is not clear what it did between April 2024 and July 2024. However, on 18 July 2024, an operative attended and recommended that another trade assess the issues relating to the bath and shower. An internal note from 23 July 2024 set out that the landlord wanted to do a joint visit to the property with the gas team in relation to the heating and water temperature matters. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response it noted there was a pressure imbalance in the water. It suspected that the hot water pressure needed to be balanced and wanted to arrange another appointment with the gas contractor to resolve this.
After the stage 2 response, the landlord changed the bath mixer. It also noted that the resident was unhappy with the water pressure. However, it said that it was unable to improve this as it was a gravity-fed water system. While it is noted that this would have been disappointing for the resident, this was a reasonable response in the circumstances. The landlord appropriately resolved the issues that had been reported, however its response time was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the temperature of the water was not appropriate as it failed to respond in line with the timescales set out in its policy. Therefore, we have made a finding of maladministration.
The landlord offered £150 to acknowledge its failings in handling the repairs and the complaint. The landlord should pay compensation of £250 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the identified failings. Its delayed response in handling the repair understandably caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.

The associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage process for how it will respond to complaints. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days. An extension of 10 working days must be agreed with the resident. This is broadly in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident’s support worker complained on the resident’s behalf on 2 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. This was in line with its policy. However, in its response, the landlord stated it had attended and completed the outstanding repair requests. As already identified, the landlord accepted this was not correct. As highlighted by the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy, it is important that complaint handlers consider all relevant information and evidence carefully. The errors contained with the stage 1 response suggest that the landlord did not adopt such an approach when responding to the resident’s initial concerns.
The landlord’s poor record keeping for the repairs carried out in 2023, not only impacted its ability to complete the repairs properly, but it also resulted in it giving incorrect information in its stage 1 response. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way and to try to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The resident responded on 11 August 2023, to say the “polluted and smelly” water was not fixed despite someone attending. This indicated the resident remained unhappy. This should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident and to see what further action was required to resolve the situation. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to query with the resident whether he wanted the complaint to be escalated. In accordance with its own complaint handling policy and our Code, which states “Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.” It did not do so and this was not appropriate.
The resident’s support worker was the person who made the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The landlord was aware of this from the outset and as such it would have been reasonable for it to adapt its handling of the complaint and dealings with the resident accordingly. Therefore, when the landlord said it texted the resident in October 2023 to ask whether the repairs were completed, it was unreasonable that it did not consider how it could make adjustments to make the service more accessible to him. For example, it would have been reasonable for it to involve the support worker to establish the status of the repairs. It was not appropriate for the landlord to assume that the issues were resolved because the resident had not replied to its text message. This is especially so given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on or around 19 April 2024. This was approximately 8 months after the resident had said he was not happy. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request in a timely manner. However, it provided its stage 2 response on 25 July 2024. This was outside of its 20-day target. It also failed to obtain agreement with the resident for an extension in line with its own policies. This was not appropriate.
The resident’s escalation request referred to the outstanding concerns being the smells from the sink, the “dirty water”, but he also referred to the “cold environment” causing dampness to develop. Its complaints policy, states it must fully understand the escalated complaint, seeking any necessary clarification. Our Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue relating to heating should not have been included, as such it should have been addressed in the stage 2 response, but it was not. This was not appropriate and is a failing.
The landlord acknowledged it had not responded in accordance with its policy timescales and offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delay. While it was appropriate that the landlord recognised its failure, its offer of compensation was not proportionate. The landlord should pay a further £50, a total of £100 to remedy its complaint handling failures. This amount compensates for the distress and inconvenience caused by:
1. The delay in providing its stage 2 response which amounted to 67 days and was outside of its own policy and our Code.
2. The failure to obtain an extension to provide a stage 2 response.
3. That incorrect information was given in its the stage 1 response.
4. The impact of the delay which negatively affected the timeliness of the repair.

This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heating in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about smells and contaminated water from the kitchen and bathroom taps.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the temperature of the water from the bath and shower taps.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive officer for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation comprising of:
  1. £250 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of heating in the property.
  2. £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of smells and contamination of the water.
  3. £250 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of the temperature of the water from the bath and shower taps.
  4. £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

This replaces the landlord’s offer of £150. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Arrange to meet or speak with the resident and/or his support worker to establish what issues are outstanding at the property. The landlord should, if necessary, carry out a further inspection and agree a schedule of work based on its findings. This includes considering whether a CCTV survey of the drains is required. It should confirm in writing with the resident what its proposed plan of action is and whether or not any further work is required. It should provide us with a copy of the same.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must review the findings in this case in relation to record keeping. It should consider its own self assessment against our spotlight report on “Knowledge and Information Management” that it did in 2023. The review must include:
1. Identifying the minimum amount of information that ought to have been recorded in its repair and communication logs, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. This should include communication with, and inspections carried out by contractors.
2. An assessment of whether there is a wider issue in relation to record keeping i.e. poor systems, or if the failings were owing to human error.

The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.