Citizen Housing (202216442)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216442

Citizen Housing

19 February 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 landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to reports of harassment and concerns about the conduct of staff members.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property, specifically:
  1. A repair to her washing machine.
  2. Damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The landlord operates a Sensitive Complaint process when a customer makes a complaint alleging inappropriate sexual behaviour and/or other sensitive behaviour and where a staff member or contractor has been named. The landlord should “not include details of the allegation/complaint on the system. Include only customer details and that there is a sensitive complaint.” A named senior member of staff is responsible for dealing with the complaint. The process notes that “Not all complaints about named staff members are categorised as a ‘sensitive complaint.’ The allegation needs to be serious in nature and in line with the criteria.”
The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crime policy states that:
1. “When addressing ASB and Hate Crime we will work in partnership with customers, the Police, Local Authorities and other agencies…”
2. “A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards then because of their race, religion, sexual orientation disability or because they are transgender.”
3. It “will adopt a victim centred, problem solving approach to talking Hate Crime. We will do this by:
  1. Agreeing a clear and transparent action plan with the reporter, advising what we can to and what the reporter can do to resolve things. Keeping all parties informed of any progress but also expecting our reporters to keep in contact with us until the case is resolved.”
4. “On some occasions other agencies may have the best tool to address the problem and we will therefore work with our partners to support their action … The action we take will be decided on the circumstances of each case in turn and will be proportionate to the behaviour exhibited.”
5. “We believe that tackling ASB and Hate Crime and its causes can be complex and requires strong local partnership arrangements and engagement with statutory services. We will work in partnership so that we can identify and use resources effectively to respond appropriately to the diverse problems each community experiences.”
The landlord has an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy which states:
1. “We seek to work in partnership with our customers, staff and stakeholders to create and deliver services that meet their needs and offer value for money. We will work within the spirit and the practice of the Equality Act 2021 by promoting a culture of respect and dignity and actively challenging discrimination.”
2. “The purpose of this policy is to outline our commitment to equality within all our services for employees, customer and communities.”
3. “Individuals have personal responsibility for the application of this policy and are expected to … ensure this policy is properly observed and fully comply with it.”
4. “This policy applies to all conduct in the workplace…”
The landlord’s Compensation Framework (January 2022) confirms it can make discretionary payments, taking into account the level of impact. The guidance provided states:
1. Awards of £0 – £250 can be made in cases of Low Impact – where the customer has suffered no significant detriment.
2. £250 – £699 can be made in cases of Medium Impact – where there has been some inconvenience or distress to the customer through the service being below the standard that the landlord would expect to deliver.
3. £700 or above in cases of High Impact where there has been significant inconvenience or distress to the customer through poor service or persistent failure leading to significant delay.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms that the landlord will not normally consider complaints when the problem happened more than 6 months before the complaint being made. The policy confirms that the landlord has a two-stage procedure.
1. It will respond to a Stage 2 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.
2. It will respond to a Stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of escalation. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it “will aim to carry out customer reported non-emergency repairs, which require access to the home, by offering flexible appointment slots.” With regards to damp and mould, the landlord’s website states that its staff will ask several questions to help it work out the cause of damp and mould, then prioritise a repair.

Scope of the Investigation

The resident has advised the Service that the issues complained about have impacted her health and wellbeing. Whilst the Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Service is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The Service can consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure of the landlord.

Background and Summary of Events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since June 2020. Her property is a 1–bedroom, first floor flat in a block. The resident suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression. She also has a joint disorder which causes chronic nerve pain and hypermobility.
On 16 September 2020, the resident reported verbal and racial abuse, and intimidating behaviour from an upstairs neighbour. The landlord left a message for the resident on 21 September 2020. When it spoke to the resident on 28 September 2020, she advised she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour as it had been quiet for about a week.
Following further reports of ASB the landlord’s records confirm that it carried out a joint home visit with the police on 21 December 2020. The resident did not want the landlord to speak to the neighbour.
On 17 November 2020, following a call from the resident in which she reported damp and mould, the landlord raised a repair order. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it carried out works on 15 January 2021, although it is not clear what works were carried out.
On 8 January 2021, according to the landlord’s records, the resident told it that it had been “very quiet since before Christmas with no issues with the neighbour.”
On 10 January 2021 the resident reported noise from the upstairs neighbour’s flat from shouting, loud music, slamming doors, dogs barking and from windchimes on their balcony; however, incidents had stopped, and she did not want the landlord to write to her neighbours. She also stated there was damp and mould in kitchen and bathroom.
On 10 February 2021 following an incoming call from the resident, the landlord noted there was damp and mould in the kitchen. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it completed works on 28 June 2021 although it is not clear what works were completed.
Following a complaint on 19 March 2021 that a staff member had been racially abusive towards her and made sexually inappropriate comments in her flat, the landlord applied its Sensitive Complaints process. The landlord has advised the Service that as this was a serious allegation against a staff member that needed to be dealt with as a confidential Human Resources matter, details of the investigation could not be held on its housing management system. The resident stated that the landlord decided that the member of staff should not work in her block but could remain working in the area. There is no evidence that the landlord sent a written response to the complaint. However, there is a file note dated 23 March 2021 advising “Spoke to the customer about the outcome of the sensitive complaint. Customer agreed that the complaint can be closed off.”
On 21 April 2021, the landlord responded to a report from the resident of a leak under her sink and that her kitchen sink taps were stiff. The operative found that the waste on the kitchen sink was leaking and that the washing machine had a split washer so was leaking when used. The operative removed the washer and installed a replacement. After the washing machine was tested, the operative reported that all was in working order. Regarding the taps, the operative installed a new set.
On 21 November 2021, after the resident reported noise from her upstairs’ neighbour flat, the landlord asked her to provide evidence.
On 8 December 2021, following a call from the resident, the landlord noted there was damp in the kitchen. Its repairs records show that a repair order was cancelled.
On 23 December 2021, the resident sent the landlord audio-visual evidence of noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour from shouting, loud music, slamming doors, their dogs barking and from windchimes on their balcony. She also reported noise from the dog belonging to a neighbour below and sent diary sheets covering the period 1 to 20 November 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 January 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the kitchen, on a wall and in/behind a cupboard. The landlord’s records show that it completed works in May 2022 although it is not clear what works were completed.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord, according to its internal records, advised the resident how to report dogs barking, raised voices, and other noise nuisance. It recorded on 8 January 2022 that it “Spoke to [the resident] regarding ASB. She said that it has been very quiet since before Christmas. There have been no issues with her neighbour.” The landlord’s member of staff advised that she could not discuss a complaint about the conduct of repair operatives as this concerned other employees.
On 28 January 2022, the resident reported noise from the upstairs’ neighbour’s flat from shouting, loud music, slamming doors, their dogs barking and from windchimes on their balcony. The landlord’s records state that it advised her to complete diary sheets for 2 weeks. The landlord acknowledged the report stating that the Neighbourhood Officer would be in touch within 3 days.
On 17 October 2022, the resident submitted an online complaint, stating that:
1. the dogs of 2 neighbours repeatedly barked and that the upstairs neighbour, whose flat was directly above hers, had metal windchimes that banged on the metal balcony and disturbed her sleep.
2. a staff member who she reported to the police for racially abusive and sexually harassing acts during 2021/early 2022 was not allowed to enter her flat but was still working in the area. This had affected her health.
3. An independent washing machine repair person advised her on 3 October 2022 that the stop tap was broken and the cold tap did not work in the kitchen therefore the washing machine had been running on hot water. As a result, her hot water bills were higher than necessary and the lifespan of her washing machine and laundry had been reduced.
4. The upstairs neighbour and another tenant in the block racially abused her, and the upstairs neighbour misused drugs.
5. Her property had damp and mould since she moved in in August 2020. While the landlord had replaced kitchen cupboards, this had not resolved the issue as mould was in the walls. A scheduled inspection did not take place.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord spoke to the upstairs neighbour about the windchimes who agreed to take it down.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
1. Regarding the resident’s reports of ASB, it asked her to keep a detailed log of the nuisance using either its own diary sheet template or her own. The resident could also report nuisance to the council’s Environmental Health service. It would then assess completed diary sheets.
2. The sensitive complaint about a staff member was historical and had already been investigated, therefore could not be revisited.
3. It did not take direct applications for a transfer. The landlord gave advice on how the resident could apply for a transfer.
4. With regards to the resident’s report of a leak, it advised of the actions taken at the repair of 21 April 2021 according to its records.
On 2 November 2022, according to the landlord’s phone record, the resident stated that she was unhappy with the Stage 1 response as it did not address her complaint:
1. She did not receive a response to submitted diary sheets other than cold calls.
2. The council advised her that the landlord had not worked with it.
3. She was having issues with her washing machine and had to handwash clothes.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord raised a job to check the supply to the resident’s washing machine.
After speaking to the resident on 29 November 2022, the landlord wrote to her noting that it would put her complaint on hold until she provided supporting evidence she wished to email. It noted that the resident advised that she had evidence from the water company that the piping to the washing machine was from the hot feed. She further stated that the landlord had not dealt with her ASB allegations, only called her, and that she was unhappy how her sensitive complaint was dealt with. The resident also advised the noise had stopped after the council issued a final warning. The landlord also wished to await the outcome of a visit on 6 December 2022 to check if the washing machine was connected to the hot feed.
In a further phone call on 2 December 2022 the resident complained that the landlord had not addressed a further email about harassment from its operatives such as from beeping horns and rushing jobs to get out of her flat. She also stated that the landlord did not address her noise sheets.
On 6 December 2022 the resident cancelled the appointment to inspect the washing machine as according to the landlord’s records “there isn’t a fault any more – so job no longer required.”
On 6 December 2022, the resident called the landlord advising that there was damp and mould in several rooms. On 7 December 2022, the landlord called the resident and arranged a damp and mould inspection for 22 December 2022.
The resident has provided this Service with a copy of a letter dated 7 December 2022 sent to the landlord about her complaint. In the letter she reiterated her concerns about noise and ASB from residents in her block and adding that a neighbour was continuing to make racist and discriminatory comments. She advised she wanted the landlord to send warning letters. The resident reiterated her belief that the landlord connected a hot tap to her washing machine, and that she wanted compensation for increased energy costs and damaged laundry. She also stated that she had provided an invoice from a private plumber for £25 which she wanted to be reimbursed. She stated that she had reported mould for the third time in December 2022 (it is understood the resident meant 2021). The resident also noted she had reported “Citizen workers being inappropriate with saying things, horns beeping funny looks from the street when I’m out for walks.” She asked the landlord to respond to her complaint within 7 days.
On 7 December 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response stating:
1. Regarding the sensitive complaint its records showed on 23 March 2021, it “spoke to the customer about the outcome of the sensitive complaint. Customer agreed that the complaint can be closed off.” The sensitive complaint would not have had a written response due to the sensitive nature of the allegation.
2. Regarding harassment after the sensitive complaint, this was a “historical” event about the landlord’s employees, therefore the Stage 1 investigating office would not have been involved in it.
3. Regarding the ASB, the last diary sheets it received were via email on 22 December 2021. On 5 January 2022 it verbally advised the resident how to report dogs barking, raised voices and any other noise. On 8 January 2022, the resident advised it that it had been quiet since Christmas and there had been no issues with the neighbour.
4. It had agreed with the resident to keep the complaint about the washing machine open to monitor the repair booked on 6 December 2022. According to its records the resident cancelled the appointment.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord raised an order for a “temporary damp and mould treatment to be carried out to all areas where its required.” The works were completed on 18 January 2023 according to the landlord’s records.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB)

It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord, however, has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so.
Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to. The landlord’s policy and procedure allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided several measures that could be taken either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. Embedded within the procedure was the need for engagement and liaison with partner agencies, including the police. The Service must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedure in response to the reported ASB.
The evidence provided to the Service indicates that the resident’s reports of ASB have been intermittent since the start of her tenancy. In respect of reports made between September 2020 and January 2021 the landlord took appropriate steps to agree what further action to take by vising the resident. However, as the resident advised she did not want it to contact her neighbour it was reasonable that it took no further action.
The resident reported further incidents of noise reports in November and December 2021 from flat above and below, including diary sheets. It is evident that the landlord responded by speaking to the resident about the case on 5 and 8 January 2022. This was a reasonable step to take as by creating a dialogue a landlord can better understand a resident’s situation which in turn can better inform what action to take on a case. The resident advised on 8 January 2022 that there were no issues therefore it was reasonable that it took no further action at that point.
After the resident made a further report on 28 January 2022 the landlord asked her to complete diary sheets again. This was reasonable insofar as diary sheets enable landlords to understand the nature, frequency, duration and impact of ASB at that time. Nonetheless, the resident had made several reports by that point; therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive and formalised an action plan. It missed opportunities to confirm with the resident if she was happy for it to contact her neighbours. It did not suggest that the resident contact Environmental Health obtain evidence of noise nuisance in line with its policy commitment to work with its partners when dealing with ASB cases.
There is no evidence that the resident made further reports prior to her complaint of October 2022. After this the landlord spoke to the neighbour about noise from windchimes, thereby taking appropriate action to resolve that aspect of the resident’s case. However, there is no good reason why the landlord did not take that action after the earlier reports about this matter.
The resident had also stated in the complaint of October 2022 that neighbours had racially abused her, as well as take drugs. The resident also stressed that a neighbour was still making racist comments when she escalated her complaint on 7 December 2022. The ASB and Hate Crime Policy recognised that the landlord should adopt a victim centred, problem solving approach that entailed agreeing a clear action plan. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s report of racial abuse and proactively seek to discuss the next steps. Compounding this, the landlord did not mention the resident’s report that she had been a victim of racist and discriminatory behaviour in the Stage 2 complaint response. Given the context of the resident also reporting concerns of harassment by staff, this lack of response was especially unreasonable and did not serve to improve the resident’s confidence in her landlord.

The landlord’s response to reports of harassment and concerns about the conduct of staff members

Following the resident’s complaint that a member of staff had been racially abusive and sexually inappropriate, it was appropriate that the landlord dealt with the matter under its Sensitive Complaints process. This meant details of the complaint was accessible to limited staff members within the organisation. The parties do not dispute that the landlord dealt with the matter by discussion. Although there was no written response to the resident to confirm the outcome, there is no evidence that the resident pursued her complaint about the staff member further until her formal complaint of October 2022.
In the complaint of October 2022, the resident raised concerns that the member of staff she had originally complained about was still working in the area. By saying the complaint was “historical” the landlord summarily dismissed and took no action to address the resident’s concerns at that time. It missed an opportunity to confirm the outcome of the sensitive complaint raised in March 2021 or otherwise manage the resident’s expectations as to the working arrangements of repair operatives and staff. If necessary, a member of staff with access to the sensitive complaint could have carried this out (without disclosing any confidential personnel information). The landlord also missed an opportunity to ascertain if there were any new incidents that may have warranted a new investigation.
The landlord also noted on 8 January 2022 that the resident had concerns about the conduct of other employees. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s staff member simply stated that they had no authority to discuss the matter. without directing the resident to the appropriate way to pursue these concerns. As a result, the result the landlord failed to get obtain details of incidents involving other employees that may have warranted investigation.
The resident reiterated her concerns about other members of staff when escalating her complaint on 2 December 2022 and in her correspondence of 7 December 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge in its Stage 2 complaint response that the resident had concerns about the conduct of other members of staff, in particularly that she perceived that she was being singled out and treated differently. As such, the landlord did not meet its obligation to investigate the resident’s complaints about staff conduct, either through the complaints procedure or the sensitive complaints process.
Taken altogether, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s further concerns about the staff member complained about in March 2021 and then failed to acknowledge that she was also unhappy with the conduct of other staff members. As such it did not demonstrate empathy towards the resident or adherence to its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy in this case. This was a missed opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.

Repair to the washing machine

In April 2021, the landlord when attending to carry out plumbing repairs in the kitchen replaced a washer in the washing machine. This was over and above its responsibility as tenants are responsible for repairing any of their own appliances such as a washing machine.
In October 2022 when raising her complaint with the landlord, the resident reported that her washing machine had been incorrectly connected to the hot tap and that she attributed this to the landlord. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to check the washing machine as this would enable it to make a better-informed decision on the resident’s allegation and compensation claim. However, the resident cancelled the appointment noting that her washing machine engineer had already rectified the plumbing connections.
Regardless of the cancelled appointment, the landlord had a responsibility to respond to the resident’s complaint and address her substantive point that it had incorrectly plumbed her washing machine therefore it should meet her extra costs she incurred. However, it did not do so, simply referring to the cancelled appointment. It therefore did not take the necessary action to resolve this complaint.

Damp and Mould

With regards to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the internal structure of the property, which may include issues resulting in damp and mould. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of mould in his property and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified which fell within its repairing obligations.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
In this case, the landlord’s repair records show that the resident periodically made reports of damp and mould from November 2020 and that it attended. However, the records do not make clear what works were carried out and why the works were not carried out sooner. A recommendation has therefore been made in this regard.
When making her complaint in October 2022 the resident stated that there were persistent problems with damp and mould and that mould had reappeared, despite the works carried out by the landlord. She also stated there had been a missed inspection. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about mould in her property in the Stage 1 complaint response. This was inappropriate as, as outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord also did not act on the resident’s report which was not in line with its responsibility to proactively investigate and resolve reports of damp and mould. According to its website, the landlord should have sought further details from the resident in order to prioritise and book an appointment.
After the resident reported again on 6 December 2022 that there was damp and mould in her property, the landlord arranged an inspection then carried out a damp and mould treatment in January 2023. It therefore took appropriate steps to deal with the mould after this further report. However, there had been an unreasonable and avoidable delay in the works due to lack of response to the complaint in October 2022. It is also noted that the works in January 2023 were “temporary”, which suggests further works were to follow, at some point. It is therefore ordered that the landlord provides the resident with details of any further works to eradicate damp and mould in her property, with timeframes, if it had not done this already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its response to reports of harassment and concerns about the conduct of staff members.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her washing machine.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

After the resident made a further report of ASB on 28 January 2022 it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive instead of just relying on her to return diary sheets. After the resident stated when making her formal complaint that she had been victim of racist and discriminatory comments, the landlord failed to take any action or even acknowledge the issue.
The landlord summarily dismissed the resident’s further concerns about the member of staff she had originally complained about under the Sensitive Complaints process. The landlord did not meet its obligation to investigate the resident’s complaint about the conduct of other staff members either through the Complaints Procedure or the Sensitive Complaints process.
The landlord did not address the resident’s substantive claim that it had incorrectly plumbed her washing machine therefore it should meet her extra costs she incurred.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s further report of damp and mould in October 2022 causing an additional delay in dealing with the issue. It also did not address the resident’s statement that there had previously been a missed appointment.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. send an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £750 comprising:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of about the conduct of staff members.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of repairs to her washing machine.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
contact the resident to obtain details of any current noise nuisance and ASB that she is experiencing. It should then agree an action plan with her.
contact the resident to obtain details of her concerns about the member of staff she had originally complained about under the Sensitive Complaints process and about the conduct of other staff members. After obtaining this information it should then commence an investigation. It should make clear to the resident the investigation process it is following and the outcome of the investigation.
address in full the resident’s complaint that her washing machine was connected to the hot water feed, referring to relevant evidence such as its repair records, evidence provided by the resident, the responsibilities of both parties etc… The landlord should also provide a definitive response to the resident’s claim for compensation. If it considers this complaint should be considered by its insurers it should make this clear and inform the resident how she can submit a claim.
provide the resident with details of any further works to eradicate damp and mould in her property, with timeframes. If necessary, the landlord should ascertain the current condition of the property and agree an appointment with the resident.
arrange a programme to ensure that staff will receive training and/or guidance relating to equality and diversity within the next 6 months.

Recommendation

The Service recommends that the landlord ensures that its repair records contain a full audit trail of all the action taken in response to a repair request. This should include details of the contact with the resident.