Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202301659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301659

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

29 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords handling of the reports of damp and mould in the residents property and the quality of the landlords repairs.
2. This service has also considered the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local Council since 01 December 2008. The landlords properties are managed through an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO).
The resident lives in his 3-bedroom property with his wife and daughter. The landlord has provided no details of any vulnerabilities within the household.
The resident has advised that his wife suffers with back problems following an accident, the landlord was aware as an adapted wet room is currently being installed for her and they have been on the waiting list for some time. His daughter has been unwell for some time, and had been on medication that lowered her immune system, which the resident brought to the landlords attention in his stage one complaint 20 February 2023 . The resident has advised in a recent update, that she has since undergone major surgery to have an organ removed and as a result her immune system is suppressed.
The resident experienced damp and mould in the kitchen and under the stairs of the property back in 2020. Works were undertaken to replaster the area around the back door and install an extractor fan in the kitchen. Halphen treatment was used under the stairs in August 2020 and again in October 2020. There was no further re-occurrence until the residents report relating to this complaint in December 2022.

Summary of events

On 13 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he had damp and mould in his property. In response the landlord arranged mould treatment, completed 20 December 2022 and a maintenance inspection of the property for the next day.
Following the inspection the landlord ordered a mould treatment to 3 bedrooms, the kitchen, and the bathroom. It also ordered a replacement extractor fan to be wired in separately to the bathroom light and a review of the loft insulation, ensuring it was the correct level, tucked into the eaves and evenly spread.
On 16 December 2022, the resident reported that water was leaking into the property above the back bedroom window. Repairs notes state that there was mould present only in the top corner of the bedroom, planned repair was required to re-bed all ridge tiles as there was nothing underneath them. On 22 December an urgent request to re–bed hip roof ridge tiles was raised.
An operative attended for the 2nd mould treatment in January 2023 and noted, that he previously attended for mould treatment on 20 December 2022, there was no mould visible at this attendance, but there was a lot of moisture running down the walls. The resident said the operative said the damp was down to condensation, which he was not happy about.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord attended for a further maintenance inspection. This resulted in jobs being raised for the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system. New roof vents to be fitted, and works to check the roof for broken or slipped slates. It transpired they had been damaged when the contractors re-bedded the ridge tiles.
On the 6 February 2024, the landlord attended again for a maintenance inspection of the property for damp and mould. It was noted that roof repairs required had already been ordered, re-pointing to the brickwork was required at the front and side elevation and a mould treatment at the bottom of the stairs.
When attending to point the section of brickwork, the operatives referred the job back to the landlord, advising that a full grind and repoint was required to approximately 65m² of the brickwork which included the front lower half, full side, and rear of the property.
On 10 February 2023, the landlords records show that roof repairs were completed.
On 20 February 2023, the resident submitted a formal stage 1 complaint, which was acknowledged the following day by the landlord. In summary it said :
1. That he had roughly 13 repairs outstanding which were listed, all in relation to damp and mould, since the inspection was carried out. His main concerns were the pointing, the holes in the roof, the air vents in the roof, sealing the windows and the installation of the PIV unit.
2. The surveyor had mentioned that the insulation in the loft was not secured under the eaves.
3. He was concerned about resolving the damp and mould which kept returning. His family were becoming unwell, his daughter had been diagnosed with a condition and was receiving medication that lowered her immune system and as a result could become extremely unwell.
4. He did not think it was reasonable that he had to call on his MP to assist in getting the repairs carried out.
5. He wanted someone to contact him urgently with an update on the works as he had not heard from anyone.
On 6 March 2023, the roofing contractor attended following a recall to re-bed ridge tiles near chimney stack as holes could clearly be seen from the loft. And to repair holes to the side elevation, which fingers could fit through.
The complaint investigator telephoned the resident on 21 February 2021, to discuss the complaint and provided its response on the 6 March 2023. In summary it said:
1. The complaint was about, damp and mould in the property, works not being completed, the decoration and an update on the adapted wet room.
2. Its investigation showed that the report of damp and mould on 13 December 2022, was the first in 2 years. A mould wash was ordered, and a technical inspector attended the next day 27 days ahead of target response times.
3. In response to the residents’ concerns over the type of mould and its impact on the families health, it said it was unable to test the type of mould as it did not have the facilities for this. If he felt, they had suffered personal injury as a result of the landlords negligence they could make a claim through its insurers. Details were provided.
4. The landlord provided an update on the repairs 7 had been completed but a number were still outstanding with estimated completion dates. These were the ridge tiles, to survey and supply PIV unit, redistribute loft insulation, pointing, repair holes to side elevation and treat mould near rear door.
5. The rebed of hip roof ridge tiles had been released for survey costs, once returned the works will be released, April/May and partners have 70 days to complete the works.
6. Works to the window hinges were not completed due to limited space in the residents property, and a request was made by operatives to complete from the outside.
7. The insulation contractors had been recalled to attend to the insulation not being correctly fitted around the eaves.
8. The resident had said his property would need decorating on completion of some of the works and he was unable to do this because of ill health. It said decorating was tenant responsibility, but they would consider assessing for a decorating allowance on completion of the works.
9. In response to the resident advising that the wardrobes were damaged through damp and mould and had to be thrown away, there was also damage to the carpet. The landlord provided its insurers details for the resident to make a claim.
10. It apologised the PIV system had not been installed since being ordered in December 2022, it was working with its partners to resolve.
11. In recognition of the delays and the number of operatives and inspector re-attending it offered £50 compensation.
On 7 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. In summary:
1. He disputed a significant amount of the information provided around the status, dates, and times of works the landlord had identified in its response. An example was the roof, stated completion 10 February 2023, but scaffolding was not erected until 16 February 2023.
2. The poor quality of the work being carried out, like the mould treatment missed patches, holes still in the roof, the wet mouldy insulation had been left in place, and the new insulation placed on top of it which was making the joists and wiring wet.
3. The conduct of operatives attending, the roofer came and sat in his van most of the duration, did one hours work and left, then when they attended on 7 March 2023, they did not have the courtesy to let the resident know, just got up on the roof, and when it was raised, gave the resident “attitude”. When they left you could still see daylight from the loft.
4. The conduct of the maintenance surveyor, the resident said in a call the maintenance surveyor told the resident he was not responsible for the follow-up works, and the resident chasing him up, was causing him stress, he said the landlord had 18,000 homes not just his.
On 16 March 2023 the resident re-contacted his local Cllr to advise repairs were still outstanding. She in-tun contacted the landlord as she had been led to believe they intended to complete all works.
On 20 March 2023 the landlords senior surveyor attended the property and noted the new bathroom extractor fan was not working properly, the window seals to the bedroom window which the contractor had previously confirmed were ok, were not sealing and needed replacing. Radiators were only warm and consistently needed bleeding, investigation requested. The radiator in the kitchen needed relocating from behind the fridge freezer. Make good brickwork to gable, fit insulated plasterboard in cupboard, repair roof, repoint and clean out cavities to the front and gable wall.
On 22 March 2023, there was a further recall of the roofing contractor as although all ridge tile work had been completed further tiles had become loose and needed replacing as a result of their earlier work.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord completed its stage 2 investigation and issued its response. In summary it said:
1. The landlord apologised for the number of discrepancies in the stage 1 response with the date of repairs. The investigator took the data from the repairs system, and it explained there were a number reasons why the date logged can be different from the date something actually occurred.
2. Following the report of damp and mould, an inspection took place and works were ordered on 15 December 2022, for a damp and mould treatment, to replace the bathroom extractor, check and top-up the loft insulation, check and adjust window seals. Further inspections were carried out January and February 2023, and further works were ordered to remedy the damp and mould including roof works, pointing brickwork and installation of a positive input ventilator. A 4th maintenance inspection took place with a senior surveyor, 20 March 2023, using damp recording equipment and a further specification of works was identified to assist in resolving the damp and mould with completion timescales of 25 days. Repairs to clean out cavities to the front and gable wall, and repoint 65m2 were planned repairs.
3. It accepted that some of the work completed by its contractor was not of the standard expected and that they needed to be re-called. It apologised for this and recognised this caused stress and frustration.
4. The complaint was upheld for recognised service failures of poor workmanship, the need for 4 damp and mould inspections and the amount of time the resident has had to put in, to get the work completed satisfactorily.

Post Complaint Information

On the 4 April 2023, the estimate was approved for installation of the PIV, which was requested following the inspection on 15 December 2022. Records show that the installation appointment was booked for 25 October 2023.
The landlords operative attended on 12 April 2023, to insulate the cold wall in the cupboard, which involved hacking off the plaster and replacing with insulating board. The operative advised the landlord that the resident said that he did not want this work carried out. The resident has told this service, that after further discussion with the operative at the time, he was advised the insulation boarding would reduce the size of the cupboard, and as the cupboard was so small to begin with, they did not want it made smaller.
Planned maintenance work to grind out and re-point the whole property and clean out the cavities, was completed 29 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman was concerned to note the residents complaint to this service, indicated that the reported damp and mould was said to be having a detrimental effect on the health of the resident and his family. However, it is outside the remit and authority of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between the reported damp and mould and any ill-effects experienced by the resident.
This investigation will therefore focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. If the resident considers that their household has experienced a negative health impact as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inaction, they may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a claim through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Landlords legal and policy context

In accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is required to:
1. keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, and external pipes).
2. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings, and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas, or electricity).
3. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
The landlords tenancy agreement commits to maintain the structure of a residents home, including any feed in tariff (FIT) equipment installed. As well as keeping essential services for gas, electricity, and heating in repair and to complete all other repairs which it is responsible for under law.
It is a requirement for all repairs to be completed within a reasonable time. While there is no statutory definition of a “reasonable” timeframe for repairs, the landlord has set out in its clarification document what the landlord considers reasonable response times for each category of repair, they are:
1. Priority 1 – Emergency repair – to be completed within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 – Urgent repair – to be completed within 3 working days.
3. Priority 3 – Priority repair – to be completed within 7 working days.
4. Priority 4 – Routine repair – to be completed within 25 working days.
5. There are also programmed replacement orders (PRO) where a repair has failed to resolve a problem and the only course of action is to replace. PRO’s are batched and released to its partners to improve efficiency and will normally be ordered in the following month.
6. There are also planned repairs which are identified either by a Maintenance Surveyors (MS) or by the partner contractors, that the landlord will carry out (subject to approval and budgetary limitations), but do not need immediate attention. Planned repair orders are also batched and released to partners monthly and can take up to 16 weeks to complete. They include roofing and pointing.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy, in which it commits to a “zero tolerance approach” to the occurrence and resolution of damp and mould. It acknowledges the health implications and the need to correctly diagnose the problem and repair any defects. When reported a trained member of staff should attend within 7 days to remove the mould. It will keep tenants informed of the diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of work.
When a particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issue is identified the damp and mould policy agrees to undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances, including providing and funding dehumidifiers through our compensation policy, the installation of positive pressure, mechanical or passive ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. It also commits to post inspect to monitor the outcome.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord has appropriately self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould and developed a policy that aligns with the principles of the code. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the policy was very new at the time of the residents complaint, and was not in effect at the time of the initial report of damp and mould in December 2022.
In December 2022, even though it was prior to the implementation of the landlords damp and mould policy, it provided a timely response to the residents initial report. It attended to treat the mould with a chemical mould wash within its current policy timescales of 7 days.
The mould wash mitigated against any immediate risk to the family from mould spores. However, simply removing surface mould will not prevent the damp and mould from reappearing, it is important to identify and tackle the underlying causes of damp and mould including building deficiencies, inadequate ventilation, and condensation.
The landlord simultaneously raised a maintenance inspection to identify the causes of the damp and mould. The maintenance inspection by the landlords qualified surveyor was completed within 2 days, the landlord said that had significantly exceeded its response timescale at the time, of 25 days which was reasonable.
No inspection report was provided to this service for the inspection of 15 December 2022, but the jobs raised following the inspection, identified that a new extractor fan was needed in the bathroom, further mould washes and potentially additional insulation in the loft.
The following day 16 December 2022, the resident reported a leak from the roof into the bedroom. On attendance it found mould in the upper corner of the bedroom, the cause was diagnosed as all the ridge tiles being loose on the roof.
This was concerning, as it would have been reasonable to expect that a maintenance inspection to determine any possible cause of damp and mould in a property, would look at the roof. A quality inspection should include an assessment of all possible causes of the damp, (leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation) which would involve checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, DPC, brickwork, plumbing, external drains/gulleys, rainwater goods as well as the airflow and extraction within the building. The resident said the insulation in the loft was saturated, and the landlords notes indicated there was no mortar at all, under any of the ridge tiles. This was not indicative of something that had occurred over night, like a tile coming loose, and raises a question over the quality of the original damp and mould inspection.
The landlords repair notes stated following attendance to the roof leak, that a planned repair was required, to re-bed all of the ridge-tiles. The landlords repairs policy states that planned repairs are repairs that do not need immediate attention and can take up to 16 weeks to repair. This was not appropriate; the property had already been identified as having a damp and mould problem. Government guidance on addressing the health risks of damp and mould requires that landlords always tackle the underlying issues promptly. It was unclear why, but the landlord raised an “urgent request” to rebed the residents ridge tiles, four days later, which was a more appropriate timescale for winter months, and should have been the landlords initial response.
Further evidence that the quality of the landlords damp and mould inspections was lacking, was that it took the landlord 3 further maintenance inspections to identify all the faults in the building contributing to the damp and mould, which was not appropriate. Some of these inspections missed major problems, such as a serious pointing problem, additional roof problems and holes in the gable which was not reasonable. The landlords inability to appropriately inspect and identify the causes of the damp in the residents property, significantly delayed resolution.
The resident informed the landlord that he believed the families health was being affected by the damp and mould in their property, particularly for his daughter who had a medical condition and medication that weakened her immune system. Government information on damp and mould advises that it can cause disease and ill health in anyone, but people with underlying health conditions, weakened immune systems and people who are taking medications that suppress their immune system are at greater risk of ill-health from damp and mould. As are children and young people whose organs are still developing and are therefore more likely to suffer from physical conditions such as respiratory problems.
The landlord cannot determine if or how damp and mould had impacted the resident and his family, this is something that can only be determined through a negligence or personal injury process. However the notification should have been a trigger for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment or considered increasing the level of priority for treating the problem. It was not evident that it did either, and the ongoing delays in identifying and resolving the problems was of increased detriment to the resident, because there were vulnerabilities in the household. This would have put undue stress and worry on the resident which could have been avoided.
The daughters health problems, made the resident understandably more anxious about the risks the mould posed to his families health. He asked the landlord to test the mould, but it said it did not have the facilities to do this. This was not unreasonable, as guidance from the centre for disease control and prevention (CDCP), advises that residents do not need to know the type of mould growing in their home, and would not recommend or perform routine sampling. This is because no matter what type of mould is present, it should be removed. The landlord has a proactive response to treat and remove mould spores within 7 days, within the framework of its damp and mould policy, which is reasonable and aligns with the guidance to remove from the CPCD.
The fourth and final maintenance inspection was completed in March 2023, by a senior surveyor and repairs manager, following the intervention of the residents local Cllr. This resulted in a full report being drafted, which demonstrated a detailed and thorough inspection with probable causes, recommendation for works to resolve, with timescales provided. It included photographic evidence of all areas inspected and damp meter readings taken. This was appropriate and commendable; however it should not have taken 4 months, 2 formal complaints from the resident and intervention from the elected Cllr, for the landlord to have completed a satisfactory inspection and assessment of the work needed. This type of inspection in the Ombudsman’s view should be standard on receipt of all reports of damp and mould.
It was also evident that further unnecessary delay was caused by the lack of quality workmanship, from the landlords contractors. Records indicated that both the roofers and those insulating the loft had to be recalled several times for poor work or damage caused by their attendance. The resident alluded to parts of the mould wash being missed. This was not reasonable, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure quality work is carried out to its properties, and may be an indication that the landlords contract monitoring protocols are not as robust as they should be.
The spotlight report on damp and mould is very clear, on the importance of communicating with residents and keeping them informed regarding actions taken or otherwise, when reports of damp and mould are received. It was evident in this case, that the landlords communication with the resident was poor throughout the process. All communication was instigated by the resident, who consistently had to chase the landlord for information and had to resort to making a formal complaint and engaging his local Cllr to find out, if and how things were progressing.
Post complaint information indicates that some of the repairs were further delayed after the complaint process including installation of the PIV, the pointing and cavity wall works and the relocation of the kitchen radiator, some were not completed until September/October 2023. This was very concerning the landlord had been on notice for a significant amount of time, that there was damp and mould in the residents property, and that his daughter was considered vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord’s ongoing delay, was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report or its own damp and mould policy. Furthermore the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from its findings to drive service improvement.
The resident also advised the landlord that they could not complete the follow-up internal decorating work due to their ill health. The tenancy agreement places responsibility for internal redecorating on residents. While the landlord reiterated this requirement, it did try and provide some assistance to the resident by considering a decorating allowance, however the residents problem was not financial it was physical. Under S20 of the Equality Act 2010, landlords have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to residents who do not have a disability. The residents claim to have restricted ability due to ill health, should have been a trigger for the landlord to consider whether the resident had a disability and if its responsibilities under the Act would apply. There was no evidence that it did.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly, and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was Code compliant by 31 December 2020.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Part of the residents complaint at stage 2, was the conduct of one of the landlords surveying staff when he was chasing works for the damp and mould. This aspect of the complaint was completely overlooked and did not receive a response, which was not reasonable.
The stage 2 complaint response explained why there were discrepancies in the dates of repair reports and attendance. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in. It was not appropriate to just accept that the repairs records did not provide a true reflection of what had happened, this was an issue that needed to be addressed and recommendations to review to improve should have been made.
A 2-stage process is recommended for the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s speedily and ensuring access to our service is not delayed.
The landlord provided us with a copy of its 2-stage complaints handling policy. However on 27 October 2023, the landlord sent a review of the stage 2 response to the resident. It stated, that “it is normal practice for it to review the complaint case when gathering information to provide to the Housing Ombudsman”. It concluded that there had been unreasonable delays in completing the work to the residents home and revised its offer from £250 to £890. It is worth noting that the revised statutory Code which came into effect 1 April 2024, no longer “recommends” a 2-stage complaint process for landlords, it is now essential.
Whilst the Ombudsman commends all attempts by landlords to work to resolve disputes with its residents, there is an expectation (which is laid out in the Code) that a thorough review with the intention to resolve, would ultimately be the role of the landlord’s two stage complaint handling process. Effectively this review was adding a third stage, which was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy, and prolonged the final outcome of the complaint, which is something the Code seeks to avoid.
Furthermore, when looking to determine whether this revised outcome is ‘reasonable redress’, the Ombudsman must establish what initiated the landlord to re-look at the case and whether it would do so consistently, as well as the redress itself. The evidence shows that it was only this Service’s involvement that instigated the review of this case and a revised offer. This means that those who do not escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman would not get a review of the stage 2 outcomes, which does not demonstrate that the landlord has a fair and consistent approach to its future handling of complaints. If the resident had not contacted the Ombudsman, the landlord’s original ICP findings would have stood.
Although the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £890, it was not considered proportionate to the level of service failure incurred. This family were more adversely affected by the landlords failings because they had a child in the household vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord did not demonstrate that this was taken into account in its handling of the damp and mould or in its assessment of the complaint. The offer was therefore too low and not within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident and their household.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the reports of damp and mould in the residents property and the quality of the landlords repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not adhere to its damp and mould policy or its repairs policy response timescales when handling the residents reports of damp and mould. There were excessive delays in both identifying the causes of the damp and mould and completing the recommended work to resolve. Some of the work that was completed was not of a good standard, as evidenced by the number of re-calls to the contractor. The contributing causes were significant in number and gravity. The resident raised the health concerns within the family, including his child who was vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould, the landlord did not acknowledge or consider the implications or risk of vulnerabilities in the household, and as a result did not deal with issues appropriately or with the urgency they required.
Although the landlords complaint handling policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Code, it’s actual complaint handling process did not. An additional review was implemented which resulted in improved outcomes and improved redress, for the resident that should have been achieved at resolution at stage 2. No part of the landlords complaint process, even with an additional stage, picked up the vulnerabilities in the household and the associated risk, and the additional failings of the landlord this presented.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord apologises to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord pays the resident (in addition to the £890 already offered the sum of £1000, broken down as follows.
1. £400 for the landlords failings in considering and recognising vulnerabilities within the household and adjusting services accordingly.
2. £400 for the distress and anxiety caused to the resident by the failing at (a) above.
3. £200 for the failures identified in the landlords complaint handling.
The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks if it has not already done so, the landlord:
1. Develops a reasonable adjustment policy (copy to be provided to this service).
2. Develops a training plan for staff on landlord responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord completes a review of its repairs and maintenance contractors performance and whether the systems set out in the contract to monitor, are working effectively.