Babergh District Council (202318473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318473

Babergh District Council

10 February 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:

a. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

b. The landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric shower.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy began on 3 March 2023. The property is a house.
The resident and her children both had vulnerabilities. One of the resident’s children had a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (AHDH), autistic traits, and anxiety. The landlord has confirmed that vulnerabilities within the household were noted on the resident’s housing application form. But this information was not transferred to its tenancy management system when the tenancy was set up. The landlord identified this issue and amended its records in March 2024.
The resident completed an online “report a repair” form on 26 April 2023, detailing multiple repairs she had identified since moving to the property. The resident said she had reported these repairs to its tenancy management team on 14 March 2023, but no action had been taken. The landlord later recognised that this communication was an expression of dissatisfaction, so logged the matter as a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint in relation to poor communications and delays providing services to the resident. It apologised for the “sub–standard” service received. It explained that it was in the process of providing staff training, to help improve its communication with residents. It said various contractors had been instructed to carry out the outstanding repairs. It clarified that its building services team would contact the resident shortly, to confirm an appointment to start the work. It committed to monitoring the works thereafter, through to completion.
The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 3 July 2023. She explained that there was no shower over the bath when she moved into the property, which her child required to help manage their disabilities. The resident explained that her child had needed to shower 2 or 3 times a day, as a way to self sooth and relieve pressure. She said she had raised this as an issue at the time of the viewing and also several times afterwards. But had received conflicting advice on how this need could be met. She explained that she had committed to purchasing the shower herself and had applied for a grant to fund the installation, in accordance with advice received. But her grant application had been declined.
The resident said that she was having to spend around £150 a week in transport costs, so her child could use another family member’s shower. She explained that she was having to keep the immersion heater on 24 hours a day, on the “off chance” that her child was willing to use the bath. She expressed concern about the implications of this on her electricity bill and whether she could afford to pay this, given her increased transport costs. She expressed confusion as to why the landlord could not install the shower for her, since it had its own electricians and plumbers.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 31 July 2023. The complaint was upheld. It apologised for the “sub–standard” service received due to its poor communication, its delayed service provision, and for any inconvenience caused. It said it had spoken to its Building Services Manager about communication and levels of service. It confirmed that it was providing training to its teams to avoid a reoccurrence in the future. It made a commitment to start installing the shower on 7 August 2023 and to monitor the work through to completion.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2023, asking it to escalate both stage 1 complaints, to stage 2. The resident said the landlord had not completed all of the identified repairs and it had not installed the shower as promised. The landlord joined the complaints together and issued a single stage 2 acknowledgement the next day. The landlord committing to issuing the full stage 2 complaint response within the next 20 working days.
The resident provided a position update to the landlord’s complaint handler on 23 August 2023. The resident said:

a. Its contractor had attended to install the shower as planned but had not completed the job. She said its plumber was supposed to attend on 22 August 2023, but the appointment had to be rebooked for the next day. She explained that she had made 3 phone calls to the landlord before it confirmed that its plumber had been delayed on another job.

b. Works required to relevel the kitchen floor were outstanding. She commented that her washing machine was now broken as a result of the uneven floor and that she was having to use the laundrette.

c. She was still waiting for window repairs to be completed. She reminded the landlord that this included a window that had been broken by its contractor while attempting to fix a hinge. She said she was aware that the landlord had raised a works order with its contractor but she had heard no more about this since.

d. It had not yet attended to inspect the leak on the shed roof.

e. It had measured up for a new larder door in May 2023, but this door had not yet been replaced. She expressed concern that this was unhygienic.

The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 October 2023. The landlord said it was “deeply sorry” for the delays completing repairs to the property since the resident moved into the property and accepted that it was at fault. It explained that it was making improvements to the way jobs were raised and scheduled. It said it had also changed its approach to managing repairs when properties became vacant, so that all repairs were completed prior to a new tenancy starting. The landlord committed to completing all of the outstanding repairs and offered £500 compensation, which was broken down as follows:

a. £300 compensation in recognition of the impact caused to the resident arising from delays completing repairs, including the resident’s time and trouble chase up repairs.

b. £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, towards petrol costs.

c. £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, towards laundrette costs.

d. An amount to be determined, towards additional energy costs incurred by the resident between the date she moved into the property until the shower was installed. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with copies of her energy statements so the level of compensation could be determined.

The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the length of time it had taken the landlord to complete the repairs. The resident felt that the landlord ought to have prioritised the installation of the electric shower due to her child’s additional needs. She said she was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord throughout the process.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman on 5 February 2025, that there were so many members of the landlord’s staff, managers, and different teams involved in her case, that it became very confusing for her. She said that the landlord’s staff were not always clear on the action that each team was taking, there was confusion over which team were responsible for completing repairs, and she believed that the landlord did not always record the commitments it was making. The resident suggests that the landlord should review its processes to address this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord will complete repairs “within a reasonable amount of time”, depending upon the urgency of the repair. The tenancy agreement also stated that “when you report the need for a repair, we will tell you when the work will be done by”.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it did not have a repairs and maintenance policy at the time of the complaint. However, it was in the process of drafting a policy for approval.
The landlord has confirmed that it did not have an aids and adaptations policy at the time of the complaint. The landlord did not indicate that it had an intention to change this.
According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord may pay a quantifiable loss payment, where a resident can demonstrate actual financial loss, as a result of the landlord not meeting its obligations. The landlord might make a discretionary payment or a goodwill gesture, where a complaint has been handled poorly, where there have been significant delays providing services, where it has failed to follow its policies and procedures, or in recognition of time, distress, and / or inconvenience due to the landlord’s actions of inaction. Such payments may range between £25 and £500, depending on the impact.

Scope of the investigation

This investigation will consider those issues raised by the resident during the landlord’s internal complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in the final complaint response.
This investigation will not assess the actions or advice given to the resident by the local authority housing solutions team, in connection with the allocation of the property or aids and adaptations. Neither will this investigation assess the actions or advice given to the resident by the local authority occupational therapy team, concerning adaptations and grant funding. This is in accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions between 3 March 2023 and 13 October 2023. This being the start of the tenancy, through to when the landlord issued of the stage 2 complaint response. This report may reference events outside of this timescale, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord in the final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

For context, the property had been vacant prior to the resident moving into the property in March 2023. It is understood that landlord had completed some works to the property while vacant. However, upon moving into the property, the resident identified several uncompleted and / or new repairs issues.
The resident reported the following repairs, prior to raising the stage 1 complaint on 26 April 2023. This included:

a. Removal of rubbish and metal posts from the garden.

b. A rotting gate post and a broken gate latch.

c. Uneven flooring in the kitchen.

d. Various repairs required to the windows.

e. Reattaching an electrical socket to the wall, for the washing machine.

f. Reattaching an electrical socket and wiring to the wall under the stairs.

g. Removal of a dimmer switch.

h. Replacement of a larder door, which had fallen off its hinges.

The landlord referenced during the complaint process, that the resident first reported that the bedroom window did not open on 6 March 2023. The Ombudsman was unable to verify this from the available evidence and it is unclear if the landlord raised a works order at this time.
The landlord’s notes suggest that the resident first reported the rotten gate post, on 9 March 2023. The landlord responded by raising a works order to repair the gate. The landlord closed down this job on 20 April 2023, after being marked as complete on 14 April 2023. The landlord was unable to explain what happened with this job, or why the job was closed, as it had no job notes. This suggests there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping and information management.
According to the resident, with the exception of the larder door, all the other repairs referenced at paragraph 23 of this report were reported by email on 14 March 2023, to the landlord’s tenancy management team. While this does not appear to be in dispute, the Ombudsman could not verify this from the available evidence.
The landlord should have contacted the resident following her email on 14 March 2023, in line with the tenancy agreement, to arrange an inspection and / or to arrange dates to complete repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord did, which is likely to have left the resident unclear about the landlord’s intentions. This was inappropriate.
The resident reported issues with the hinges and locks on another window, on 16 March 2023. The landlord endeavoured to resolve this for the resident but was sent away because the resident’s children were sleeping. The landlord accepted during the complaint process that it had not pre-arranged this appointment, for which it apologised. This was fair.
Upon reviewing its records during the stage 1 investigation, the landlord established that works orders had already been raised for some of the repairs reported. It did itself identify, that its communication with the resident in relation to repairs had been poor and there had been delays in the delivery of services. It also recognised the inconvenience this had caused the resident, for which it apologised. The landlord committed to completing any outstanding repairs to the property. It said it was aiming to improve its communications with residents through staff training.
The landlord’s response shows that it was taking responsibly for its failings, it was endeavouring to put things right for the resident, and it was trying to learn from complaint outcomes. This was encouraging and was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord inspected the property on 12 June 2023, as part of the complaint resolution. The landlord’s surveyor issued its inspection report the following day. The report made 12 recommendations for remedial works to the property. It is noted that there were no recommendations concerning the larder door. This may suggest that the resident did not bring this to the surveyor’s attention during the inspection. However, the resident did chase the landlord independently on 22 June 2023, for an update on repairs to the larder door. The resident’s enquiry was forwarded onto its building service admin team, but it is unclear from the available evidence if the resident received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2023, which was 17 working after the inspection. It apologised for any repairs that had been missed, or that had not been completed prior to the property being let. It also apologised for the delay in actioning remedial works. Again, this shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failings. The Ombudsman notes that the author of this email was a manager of the landlord. This was encouraging, because this suggests that senior staff had a level of oversight over the case. But it might have been reasonable for this communication to have been issued to the resident in a timelier manner of the inspection.
It is noted that the landlord also took the opportunity to list all of the repairs previously identified by its surveyor on 12 June 2023. It said that it would confirm appointment dates with the resident, as these works were scheduled. It is understood that some works orders were raised the same day. Other jobs, such as the leaking shed roof, were raised later. Since investigations carried out by the Ombudsman are evidence based, it would have been helpful if the landlord had provided evidence verifying when works orders were raised and its expected timescale for completing repairs. The Ombudsman’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response was made more difficult by the absence of this information.
The resident chased the landlord 4 times between 7 July 2023 and 26 July 2023, for an update on the repairs to the larder door. The resident explained that the landlord had measured the door but she had not heard anymore, and now the door had fallen off. This suggests that the landlord’s communications had not significantly improved.
The landlord told the resident on 26 July 2023, that it would chase its contractor for an appointment for the larder door. The landlord has not provided evidence showing how this was progressed. It is noted that repairs to the larder door were still outstanding at the time the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, on 22 August 2023.
The landlord’s complaint handler proactively checked the status of the repairs with the resident during the stage 2 complaint investigation. The resident confirmed that all of the identified repairs had been completed, except for repairs associated with the kitchen floor, the windows, the shed roof, and the larder door. The landlord told the resident that it would schedule all of the outstanding repairs and records these on an action plan. This was good practice.
The landlord’s complaint handler then asked the service area to produce a “suitable” action plan, incorporating all of the outstanding repairs, which could be shared with the resident in the stage 2 response. The landlord’s complaint handler chased the service area several times for this action plan between 21 September 2023 and 13 October 2023. The final complaint response was subsequently issued without an action plan, by agreement with the resident. However, this continued to leave the resident unclear on the expected timescale for completing the remaining works, which was unfair.
The landlord took responsibility in the final complaint response, for delays completing repairs to the property. It was transparent about the steps it was taking to try and transform and improve its repairs service. This was positive and ought to have given the resident some reassurance. The landlord showed that it trying to put things right for the resident by apologising for its failings, by committing to complete the outstanding repairs, and by offering compensation.
The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, took into account the likely impact caused to the resident by delays completing repairs. It also took into account the resident’s time and trouble, having to constantly chase up the repairs, which was fair.
It is noted that the landlord did not agree to replace the resident’s washing machine, which the resident suggested had been broken by the uneven floor. But it did make a goodwill gesture towards the resident’s laundrette costs. In the Ombudsman’s view this was a fair compromise, since it was unlikely that a direct correlation could be drawn between the uneven floor and the broken washing machine, with any certainty.

Following issue of the stage 2 response

It is unclear if the landlord was the tracking the progress of the repairs, following issue of the stage 2 complaint. But it was evident that the resident continued to chase the landlord for repairs updates, until all of the repairs were completed. This might have been avoided, if the landlord had shared the action plan that it had promised to provide, sooner than 8 December 2023. This was a source of frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman can see no reasonable explanation why the action plan was not shared with the resident in a timelier manner. It is understood that all of the repairs were completed by 15 December 2023, in line with the action plan.
A final observation is made in relation to comments made by the resident to the Ombudsman on 5 February 2025 (paragraph 14 of this report, refers). It is understandable that the resident may have felt confused if there were multiple staff and multiple teams involved in her case. Landlords should be mindful of the impact on residents arising from their chosen organisational structures, particularly on residents with declared vulnerabilities, as was the situation in this case. The landlord should take the opportunity to reflect on the resident’s customer journey in this case and consider if there are any learnings that may be taken. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter, as may be appropriate.

Overall

The landlord did not keep the resident adequately updated in relation to the progress of the repairs. The length of time taken for it to complete all of the repairs reported was unreasonable. The landlord’s handling of repairs was likely to have adversely impacted the resident, causing her distress and inconvenience.
However, the landlord identified on its own initiative, that there had been failure in its handling of the repairs and with its communications. It explained how it was transforming its repairs service to improve services for residents. It tried to put things right by apologising, committing to complete the repairs, and offering compensation in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and the likely detriment to the resident.
Therefore, on balance, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. But the Ombudsman makes several recommendations later, for the landlord’s further consideration.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric shower

The resident accepts that she did not expressly state that she needed any aids or adaptations to the property when she applied for the property. The resident said that it did not occur to her that a shower over the bath would be viewed as an aid or adaptation. It only became apparent that there was no shower over the bath when she viewed the property. It is understood that the resident sent an email to the local authority housing solutions team on 8 February 2023, asking for advice on getting a shower installed. It is unclear if the landlord was aware at this stage of the additional need.
The resident claims to have attended the landlord’s offices on 8 March 2023 to pick up the keys to the property. The resident states that while she was there, she explained that her child had additional needs and asked if the landlord could assist by installing a shower over the bath. The resident claims that she was advised to obtain an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral from the local authority, which she did the same day. This was reasonable advice, given that the local authority would have had general powers to provide discretionary assistance, to cover the cost of minor adaptations intended to satisfy needs which were not covered by a disabled facilities grant, or where an adaptation was urgently required.
The Ombudsman has not been able to determine how the landlord would have usually treated requests for aids and adaptations, as it had no policy. But it would be usual practice for a landlord to want to see an OT report before committing to carrying out works. Firstly, to verify need and secondly, to ensure that any works completed would meet the requirements of those concerned.
According to the resident, she was informed by an OT on 9 March 2023, that a shower over the bath was a “fitting”, rather than an “adaptation”. The OT suggested that even if they were able to carry out an OT assessment, there would be a 6-month wait for this. The resident suggested that she could pay for the shower herself but would need help installing it. The OT explained that she could try to apply for some grant funding to pay for the shower installation, but this might not be successful due to the size of the works. The OT recommended that the resident speak with the landlord again.
Sometime after this, the resident attended the landlord’s offices, asking for further advice. The resident states that the landlord told her to write in, explaining the situation. As the landlord was unlikely to be able to provide a decision there and then, this was reasonable advice.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of an email she sent to the landlord on 10 March 2023. The resident went into some detail in this email, about her child’s diagnosis and why a shower over the bath was needed. She suggested that she could cover the costs of the actual shower, but she could not afford to have it installed and she did not want to try installing the shower herself. She explained that she had approached an OT for assistance and repeated the advice they had given. She asked the landlord to forward her email onto its tenancy support team, as one of its staff had previously suggested there may be some charities who could assist.
The resident states that she was contacted by several members of staff following her email, which suggests that the resident’s email was acted upon. The resident claims that she was given conflicting information about her next steps. It has not been possible to determine who the resident spoke to or what advice she was given from the available evidence. But it is understood that the landlord sent the resident a “tenant alteration” form. The resident claims that the landlord told her to complete the form and then “leave it with” the landlord to complete the work. While the Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s account, this could not be verified from the available evidence.
In the Ombudsman view, the landlord ought to consider developing an aids and adaptations policy, to guide its staff and ensure consistent messaging for residents. An aids and adaptations policy would promote transparency on the level of assistance that the landlord might provide to those seeking aids and adaptations.
The resident completed and returned the tenant alteration form to the landlord on 28 March 2023. The landlord responded promptly, the following day, granting written permission for the resident to install her own shower over the bath. The landlord asked the resident to inform it when she had installed the shower, so the shower could be inspected. It said the installation must be completed within 8 weeks.
It is understood that at some point, the resident applied to the local authority for a disabled facilities grant (DFG), asking for financial assistance with installing the shower. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 May 2023, stating that she needed more time to complete the shower installation, as she was still waiting for funding. The landlord responded in a timely manner the following day, stating that permission had been extended until 31 August 2023. This shows that the landlord was being supportive.
The resident’s application for a DFG was later refused by the local authority. The OT suggested that she apply for discretionary funding for minor adaptations. It is understandable that by this time, several months had passed and that her child’s needs had still not been met. While the Ombudsman can understand this was frustrating for the resident, this was not within the landlord’s control.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 3 July 2023, after her application for DFG funding was refused. The resident said that she could not understand why the landlord was unable to fit a shower for her, since it had its own plumbers and electricians.
The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman, that it did not specifically agree to carry out works to install an electric shower in the property. But it had already agreed to carry out a bathroom replacement in the property, after the resident had moved in. The landlord states that it did agree to connect an electric shower to the existing circuits in the property. But this could not be connected up until the bathroom upgrade had been completed. The landlord’s decision to support the resident with fitting a shower, suggests that the landlord was taking a customer centric approach, which was positive in the circumstances.
It is understood that the landlord phoned the resident on 27 July 2023, agreeing an appointment to begin works to the bathroom on 7 August 2023. The evidence suggests that there were some minor delays completing the bathroom upgrade and connecting up the shower. It was likely that the resident was caused some inconvenience having to chase the landlord when its plumber did not arrive on 22 August 2023. The landlord ought to have updated the resident a soon as it became aware that its plumber was delayed. But it was positive that the landlord rescheduled the appointment for the next day.
The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the target completion date for the bathroom replacement and for connecting up the shower. But it is noted that the job was completed within 3 weeks of the works starting. This does not seem unreasonable, given the scope of the works, and the number of specialist trades that were likely to be involved.
The landlord recognised in the stage 1 complaint response on 31 July 2023, that its communications with the resident concerning the electric shower had been “sub–standard”. It apologised for this and committed to carrying out staff training. In its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, the landlord apologised for delays completing the bathroom upgrade, noted that the shower had been installed in August 2023, and made a gesture of goodwill. It was encouraging to see that landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and offered a remedy based on this. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord did supply and fit the shower, at no cost to her.

Overall

It is evident that there was some confusion for the resident in regard to how the needs of her child could be met. It was not possible to determine from the evidence seen, the extent to which the landlord’s own actions or inaction played a part in this. However, it might have been clearer for all concerned, if the landlord had an aids and adaptations policy in place, setting out its approach.
The landlord gave the resident permission to fit her own shower, as a tenant alteration. When she was unable to secure funding to pay for the installation, the landlord agreed to connect a shower up for the resident while it was upgrading the bathroom. It was understandable that the shower could not be connected until the bathroom upgrade had been completed. The landlord’s belated decision to supply and fit the shower at its own cost, shows its commitment to resolving the matter for the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology and goodwill gestures, satisfactory resolves the matter for the resident.
Therefore, on balance, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric shower. But the Ombudsman makes several recommendations later, for the landlord’s further consideration.

The landlord’s record keeping and information management

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. Landlords are expected to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
The Ombudsman was appreciative of the landlord’s efforts when responding to the Ombudsman’s information request, in generating a timeline of events. However, since the Ombudsman’s investigations are evidence based, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided all of the supporting evidence that it relied upon when producing this timeline. This is important because without evidence to support its actions, the Ombudsman may not be able to fully determine whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should reflect on this when responding to evidence requests in the future from the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman makes a final observation in relation to the landlord’s disclosure about the recording of vulnerabilities. It was positive that the landlord updated its tenancy management system in March 2024, after identifying that information about vulnerabilities within the household, had not been transferred from the resident’s housing application. However, it is noted that this was 12 months after the tenancy started.
It would have been incumbent on all staff, to ensure that the records held by the landlord were accurate and up to date, particularly where this concerned vulnerabilities. Without this information, the landlord would be less likely to deliver services which met and took into consideration the needs of the resident and her household. The evidence shows that the resident mentioned vulnerabilities within the household several times during the timeframe of the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have identified that its records were incomplete at a much earlier stage and then acted accordingly.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress:

a. In the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

b. In the landlord’s handling of the installation of an electric shower.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £500 compensation it previously offered during the complaint process, directly to the resident, if it has not done so already.
The landlord should honour its commitment to contribute towards the resident’s increased energy costs, over the period it stated, if this has not already been paid.
The landlord should reflect on the findings of this investigation and consider any learnings. As a minimum, the landlord should reflect on the issues that surfaced in this case, relating to its record keeping and information management. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.
The landlord should reflect on its handling of repairs between issue of the final complaint response and 15 December 2023, when all of the repairs were completed. The landlord should consider making an additional offer of compensation, where failings are identified.
The landlord should consider developing an aids and adaptations policy, setting out its approach, so this is clear to its staff and residents.