City of London Corporation (202322236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322236

City of London Corporation

28 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the utility room and the landing area.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration through the patio doors.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 8 July 1999 and the landlord is a local authority.
The property is a penthouse flat which consists of 5 bedrooms, a dressing room, a living room, a dining area, 3 bathrooms, 1 shower room, a roof terrace, a conservatory, a storeroom and a balcony. The property is located on 3 levels, which are on floors 37-39 of a block.
The landlord’s records show that various orders were raised between 1999 and 2018 to address water penetration through the patio balcony doors. An order was also raised in 2018 to deal with a leak in the conservatory.
Further orders were then raised in 2021 and 2022 to investigate and carry out repairs to the patio doors to prevent water ingress into the lounge and to address a leak from the conservatory that was affecting the utility room. The works carried out included:
1. Lifting the paving slabs on the main patio balcony, clearing debris under the slabs, laying new felts and relaying the slabs.
2. Renewing the mastic sealant around the patio door frame.
3. Removing the sliding door track for the patio door and sealing it back down.
4. Removing the capping between and around the patio door frame to check for damp.
5. Creating test holes in the top floor balcony to check for damp.
6. Carrying out a water test on the top floor drain on the balcony outside the conservatory.
7. Strip, prime and re-felt the gutter of the conservatory.
8. Replacing the draughtproofing and weather strips on the edges of the patio doors.
9. Repairing felt to the conservatory roof.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 27 February 2023. She said there had been damage to the wooden floor in the lounge in February 2021 due to water ingress through the patio doors and she had needed to replace the wooden flooring twice since then. She had claimed the cost from the buildings insurance but had now been told that she could not claim for further damage. She had therefore claimed through her contents insurance. The resident added that she had been advised that the patio doors had been hung the wrong way and that the remedial work carried out to date had been ineffective.
The resident also included in her stage 1 complaint that her property had suffered from water ingress which had caused damage to the utility room ceiling and on the landing outside the utility room. She said that the root cause had not been identified despite a camera survey in 2014. The resident had made an insurance claim in November 2021 and this had been accepted but she was unable to redecorate until the leak had been resolved. She said that at no time had the utility room ceiling been removed to check the source of the leak. She said that the landlord had identified the need to replace the conservatory glass but she did not believe this was the source of the water ingress.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 27 March 2023 in which it accepted that although it had made a number of attempts to resolve the water ingress, any improvement to the situation had not lasted long. The landlord said that as it had not been able to resolve the patio door issue, it would replace the door and it would not recover the cost through the service charge.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 reply that it had tried to obtain costings for the replacement of the conservatory but this had been difficult. Consequently, it had so far only obtained one quote. It would therefore consider how best to move things forward. The landlord said it would get back to the resident with a programme of dates for the replacement of the patio doors and a decision regarding the conservatory within the next 2 weeks.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated as she had not received the follow-up information agreed in the landlord’s stage 1 reply. She said she wanted adequate repairs to be done to the patio doors and for the broken glass in the patio to be replaced. She suggested that the ceiling in the utility room should be removed to help identify the source of the leak.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 5 June 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised that it had not provided a further update within 2 weeks having committed to do this in the stage 1 reply.
2. The landlord accepted that the works it had carried out to the patio doors had not resolved the water ingress satisfactorily and permanently.
3. The landlord said the only way to resolve the patio door issues was to replace the patio door and frame using a steel frame. The landlord said it was liaising with the planning team regarding this.
4. The landlord said that as stated in the stage 1 reply, the conservatory needed replacement. However, it had so far only received one quote. It was therefore still looking for other contractors to quote for the work.
5. The landlord accepted that it needed to move as quickly as possible to resolve the issues with the patio doors and conservatory. It said it would continue to monitor progress and provide the resident with updates.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2023 to say that the water ingress through the patio doors and the conservatory had still not been resolved. She mentioned that the work needed to be done before the end of the year because a peregrine falcon would be returning to the area to nest and this would delay the works taking place.
The resident advised this Service on 11 March 2025 that her property was still experiencing water ingress through the patio doors and through the conservatory. The resident said she wanted the issues with the patio doors to be resolved permanently and wanted the leak affecting her utility room and the outside area near the utility room to be addressed. However, she said she was concerned that the proposed action to replace the conservatory glass would not resolve the leak.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 19 March 2025 and provided the following updates:
1. The landlord said that the patio doors had been checked by 2 contractors and both agreed that the patio doors had been fitted incorrectly and would need to be rehung.
2. The landlord said it had suggested that this work should be added to its wider programme of works for windows and doors to achieve economies of scale.
3. The landlord said it had confirmed there was no leak from the plant room and that the leak was from the conservatory roof.
4. The landlord said that the patio doors would be replaced ‘like-for-like’ and therefore it did not anticipate needing to obtain planning permission.
5. The landlord said it had served a section 20 consultation notice for the replacement of the double-glazed panes on the conservatory roof. However, it had received several questions from residents regarding responsibility for the work. The landlord said that the second round of section 20 notices could not be sent to residents until the observations had been responded to.
6. The landlord confirmed that it could not proceed with the work until the falcon nesting in the area had gone because it was prohibited from disturbing the falcon. The landlord said that once the falcon had gone, it would be in a position to issue the next stage of the section 20 notices.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated in her stage 1 complaint dated 27 February 2023 that she had experienced water penetration “for decades” in the utility room and on the landing. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of water penetration from 2021 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2021 is made in this report to provide context.
The resident stated in her email dated 14 March 2024 that there were ‘blown’ windows throughout the property. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the points being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. As the ‘blown’ windows were not considered by the landlord in its stage 1 or 2 replies, they have not been investigated by the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the utility room and the landing area.

Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair and for making good any defect affecting the structure.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord raised an order on 8 February 2021 to investigate water penetration from the ceiling in the lounge. The landlord carried out the inspection on 15 February 2021 and raised various follow-on orders on 23 February 2021. The landlord therefore carried out the inspection and raised the orders within a reasonable timescale. One of the orders was to check all the double-glazed units (on the conservatory) and measure up for new ones as necessary. This was completed on 23 March 2021 and therefore was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord also raised an order on 23 February 2021 to lift the slabs on the main patio balcony, clear debris, lay new felts and relay the slabs. The landlord’s records state that this work was completed on 19 May 2021, however, other evidence suggests that the work was completed earlier than this. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 6 May 2021 to investigate water penetration through the lounge ceiling and the landlord noted that the main balcony above had already been renewed. However, it also noted that a small area outside the fire exit had not been renewed. The landlord therefore raised an order on 6 May 2021 to renew the small balcony area outside the fire exit. The landlord’s records state that the work was completed but the completion date is unknown.
The landlord’s lack of accurate information showing when the repairs to the balcony were carried out shows a weakness in the landlord’s record-keeping and has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord raised a further order on 4 August 2021 to investigate water ingress and the inspection took place on 26 August 2021. The inspection was therefore carried out within a reasonable timescale. As a result of the inspection, various follow-on orders were raised on 27 August 2021, including drilling test holes in the top floor balcony, carrying out water tests on the balcony drains and applying new mastic sealant around the top floor conservatory door. The landlord also arranged for a window contractor to check for water penetration and this inspection was done on 11 October 2021. Finally, the landlord raised an order on 29 October 2021 to install scaffolding to access the guttering and to carry out repairs to renew the felt so that water flowed correctly into the guttering.
The landlord’s records show that the above works were carried out from October 2021 to March 2022. Therefore, during this period the landlord carried out various investigations and tried various remedies to address the water ingress. This was reasonable as the landlord had not definitively identified the source of the leak.
However, the resident continued to report water ingress and therefore the landlord raised an order on 30 November 2022 to investigate dampness and a leak affecting the utility room. The order stated that the matter had been looked at previously but was still an issue. The landlord’s records indicate that the inspection took place on 1 December 2022 and was therefore carried out within a reasonable timescale. The landlord raised various orders on the same day, including to repair broken concrete above the conservatory roof and to replace a small area of felt that had come away from the wall above the conservatory roof. The landlord’s records do not show whether these repairs were completed, which again shows weaknesses in the landlord’s record-keeping.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2023 and said there had been a problem with water penetration in the utility room and on the landing “for decades”. She said she had made an insurance claim in November 2021 and the claim had been accepted. However, she said she had not been able to redecorate because the leak had not yet been resolved. She said that the work carried out by the landlord to replace the felts had not resolved the leak and she was also unconvinced that the landlord’s proposal to replace the conservatory glass would resolve the problem. However, she asked for the glass to be replaced at the earliest opportunity once the falcon that was nesting in the area had gone.
The landlord explained in its stage 1 reply dated 27 March 2023 that it had tried to obtain quotes to replace the conservatory glass but that only one contractor had provided a quote. It said it would consider how to proceed with replacing the glass and would advise the resident of its decision within 2 weeks.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 26 April 2023 in which she said the landlord had not provided the update it had agreed to in its stage 1 reply. It had been a month since the landlord had sent its stage 1 reply in which it had agreed to provide an update in 2 weeks. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not kept to this commitment. The lack of updates to the resident led her to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 5 June 2023 and apologised for not providing the agreed update to the resident. It confirmed that the conservatory glass needed to be replaced completely to resolve the leak/damp. The landlord again said it was seeking alternative quotes to replace the glass as it could not consult with leaseholders in the block based on one quote. It was reasonable for the landlord to obtain more than one quote for the works to the conservatory as the cost was significant and it needed to demonstrate it was achieving value for money when carrying out the statutory consultation with leaseholders about the works. The landlord said it understood the need for it to move as quickly as possible to resolve the leak from the conservatory. It said it would monitor progress and provide the resident with updates.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2023 to report there was still a leak affecting the utility room and the landing and that she had not received any further progress updates. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided further updates to the resident to demonstrate the action it was taking to secure additional quotes to replace the conservatory glass. A further 4 months had passed since the landlord had given a commitment in its stage 2 reply to progress the matter as quickly as possible and to provide the resident with updates. The resident advised the Ombudsman that during this period, the leak had continued.
The landlord’s records show that the resident chased the landlord on 7 March 2024 for a progress update. She advised the landlord that the conservatory roof was still leaking. It was unreasonable that 9 months after sending its stage 2 reply on 5 June 2023 the landlord had not provided the resident with any meaningful updates to the show it was progressing the remedial work to the conservatory roof.
The landlord inspected the conservatory roof with a contractor on 11 March 2024 and confirmed that several of the double-glazed units in the conservatory needed to be replaced. It said that some of the units had deteriorated so much they were leaking water. However, the landlord’s records confirmed that the falcon had returned to its nest in March 2024 and therefore it could not carry out any works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 July 2024 to confirm that the falcon had returned and therefore it was not allowed to carry out works to the conservatory roof until the falcon had gone. The landlord wrote to this Service on 19 March 2025 to confirm that it had served a section 20 consultation notice for the replacement of the double-glazed panes on the conservatory roof. However, it said it needed to respond to various observations from residents before it could proceed with the next round of section 20 consultation. The landlord also confirmed it could not proceed with the consultation or the work until the falcon nesting in the area had gone.
The Ombudsman understands the requirement for the landlord to go through the section 20 consultation process before carrying out the major works to the conservatory roof. The Ombudsman also understands the restrictions that were placed on the landlord due to the nesting falcon. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that there was an unreasonable delay and lack of communication regarding the landlord’s progress in resolving the leak from the conservatory roof. It had been 2 years since the landlord had advised the resident in its stage 1 reply that it was considering its options because it had only received one quote for the replacement of the conservatory roof. Even taking into account the restrictions caused by the nesting falcon and the need for the section 20 consultation, the Ombudsman considers the delay to have been excessive.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord produced clear plans with timescales during the complaints process for obtaining the necessary quotes, carrying out the section 20 consultation and carrying out the remedial work. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord provided meaningful updates to the resident to reassure her that progress was being made.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the utility room and the landing area because:
1. The landlord did not keep the commitment made in its stage 1 reply to update the resident within 2 weeks about its decision in relation to the replacement of the conservatory glass.
2. Despite giving a commitment in its stage 2 reply to progress the conservatory glazing issue as quickly as possible, the landlord had still not provided any meaningful update to the resident by the time she contacted the Ombudsman 4 months later in October 2023.
3. The landlord had still not provided the resident with any meaningful progress update prior to her chasing the landlord in March 2024.
4. The overall time taken by the landlord to get to the stage of carrying out the section 20 consultation with leaseholders was excessive. By March 2025, which was 2 years after its stage 1 reply, the landlord had not yet carried out the final stage of the section 20 consultation.
5. The landlord did not produce and share with the resident clear, timely plans with timescales for carrying out the remedial works to the conservatory.
6. There were gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping regarding completion dates for repairs and these gaps hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
This Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £800, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and had a significant impact. In this case, the utility room was affected by the leak and damp and the resident was unable to redecorate the room because the leak had not been resolved. There was also unsightly damage to the landing ceiling outside the utility room. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord on various occasions and therefore incurred time, trouble and inconvenience in trying to get the matter resolved. The Ombudsman has made orders to ensure the landlord now deals with the outstanding remedial work in a timely manner.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration through the patio doors

The landlord raised an order on 8 February 2021 to investigate water ingress affecting the property, including through the patio doors. The landlord inspected the property on 23 February 2021 and had therefore carried out the inspection within a reasonable timescale. The landlord raised an order on 23 February 2021 to cut out and renew the mastic around the patio doors and frame. This work was completed within a reasonable timescale on 8 March 2021.
The landlord raised a further order on 5 May 2021 to investigate water ingress in the lounge (through the patio doors). The inspection was completed on 6 May 2021 and was therefore carried out in a timely manner. The notes stated that gaps were found under the sliding patio doors and therefore the inspector recommended renewing the mastic sealant around the patio doors and resealing the sliding door track. The landlord therefore raised an order on the same day to carry out the recommended work and the work was completed on 4 June 2021. The landlord had therefore taken 21 working days to complete the work, which was reasonable.
A further order was raised on 10 November 2021 to test the wooden flooring in the lounge for dampness over a 6 to 8-week period. The landlord’s records show that the testing period ended on 5 January 2022, which was reasonable as this was in line with the length of the test period it had proposed. However, the landlord’s records do not show the outcome from this testing, which was therefore a weakness in the landlord’s record-keeping.
A further order was raised on 9 March 2022 to inspect the patio doors and this inspection was completed on 30 March 2022. The inspection was therefore carried out within a reasonable timescale. However, the landlord’s records show that it was not until 13 July 2022 that the landlord raised an order to replace the draughtproofing and weather strips on the edges of the patio doors to prevent water ingress. It was unreasonable that it had taken about three and half months for the landlord to raise an order after it had inspected the patio doors on 30 March 2022. There are no notes to explain the reason for this delay, which was again a record-keeping failing. The landlord’s records show that the work to the draughtproofing and weather strips was completed on 12 September 2022, however, the landlord has said that this date may not be correct due to issues at the time with its new IT system.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2023 in which she stated that the wooden flooring in the lounge had been damaged in February 2021 due to water ingress through the patio doors. She said that prior to this she replaced the flooring twice. She had claimed the cost through the landlord’s buildings insurance but had now been told that she could not submit a further claim. Therefore, she had claimed through her own contents insurance and had only received part of the cost. She said she had been advised that the patio doors had been fitted incorrectly and therefore she had waited many months for the doors to be fitted correctly. She pointed out that the remedial work carried out so far had been ineffective.
The landlord accepted in its stage 1 reply dated 27 March 2023 that it had not been able to resolve the patio door issues fully. It confirmed that the patio doors would need to be replaced and that it would not seek to recover the cost through the service charge. As the landlord had not been able to resolve the water ingress issues with the patio doors, it was reasonable that it had decided to replace the doors and not to charge residents for the work. The landlord said it would get back to the resident within the next 2 weeks with a programme of dates for replacing the patio doors. This was a reasonable timescale to provide a programme for the work.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 26 April 2023 stating that the landlord had not kept to its commitment to provide a programme of the work within 2 weeks. As the landlord had agreed to provide the programme of works for the remedial work to the patio doors within 2 weeks, it was unreasonable that it had failed to do so. The resident mentioned in her complaint that she had not been able to replace the flooring since February 2021.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 reply dated 5 June 2023 for the lack of communication and for not providing the programme of works within 2 weeks as it had promised in its stage 1 reply. The landlord repeated that it would have to replace the patio doors and the frame with a steel frame in order to resolve the water ingress problems permanently. The landlord said it would liaise with the council’s Planning team to check whether this was acceptable but said it understood the need for it to move as quickly as possible to resolve the issue.
It was unreasonable that at the time of the sending its stage 2 reply on 5 June 2023, the landlord had still not provided the resident with a clear programme or timetable for replacing the patio doors. It had been more than 2 months since the landlord had agreed in its stage 1 reply to provide the programme for replacing the patio doors and the resident had made the landlord aware that she had not been able to replace the damaged flooring in the lounge since February 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2023 to report that the patio doors had still not been replaced and therefore she had not been able to replace the damaged wooden flooring in the lounge. She said that a contractor had measured for the replacement of the patio doors at the beginning of July 2023 but she had not received any updates since then and no progress had been made. The resident asked for the work to be done by the end of the year before the nesting falcon returned.
The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord in March 2024 to chase about the patio doors. It was unreasonable that the work to the patio doors had not yet been completed 10 months after the landlord had sent its stage 2 reply acknowledging that it needed to move as quickly as possible to replace the patio doors. It was unreasonable that the resident had not even been given a proposed timetable for carrying out the work. It meant that the resident could not replace the damaged flooring in the lounge until the work had been done.
The landlord inspected the patio doors on 11 March 2024 and confirmed once again that the patio doors had been fitted incorrectly. However, the landlord’s records confirmed that the falcon had returned to its nest in March 2024 and therefore it could not carry out any works at that time. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 March 2024 and asked whether any preparatory work could be done in terms of surveys or measurements so that the work could be carried out when the falcon had left for the nesting season.
The landlord wrote to the contractor on 23 May 2024 and asked whether it could proceed with the work to the patio doors now that the falcon had gone. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 July 2024 to say that the falcon had returned and therefore it was not allowed to carry out works to the patio doors until the falcon had gone. The landlord wrote to this Service on 19 March 2025 to confirm that the patio doors still needed to be fitted correctly.
In the Ombudsman’s view it is unacceptable that the remedial works to the patio doors had not been carried out 2 years after the landlord had stated in its stage 1 reply that the patio doors would need to be replaced. During this time, the resident had not been able to replace the damaged flooring in the lounge and had chased the landlord on various occasions about the water ingress.
Whilst the Ombudsman understands that progress at times was hampered by the nesting falcon, this Service would have expected the landlord to have carried out preparations, such as taking measurements and ordering the replacement doors so that work could proceed during a period when the falcon was not nesting. It was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to plan ahead in this way.
The landlord has advised this Service that it is thinking of adding the replacement of the patio doors to its wider window/door major works programme to achieve economies of scale. In the Ombudsman’s view, this would only be acceptable if it resulted in the remedial work being completed to the patio doors within a reasonable timeframe. Any further delays to the patio door remedial work would be unreasonable as the landlord had previously accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 5 June 2023 that the water ingress problem had not been permanently resolved.
The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in repair and it was not disputed that this included the patio doors. Therefore, as the landlord accepted that the patio doors had been incorrectly fitted and was still allowing water ingress, the landlord has a responsibility for rectifying this defect within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman understands that there were added complications caused by the nesting falcon but nevertheless has made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported water penetration through the patio doors because:
1. There was a delay in the landlord raising remedial works to the patio doors following the inspection on 30 March 2022.
2. The landlord did not keep the commitment made in its stage 1 reply to provide the resident with a programme of works for the patio doors within 2 weeks.
3. The landlord had still not provided the resident with a programme of works for the patio doors at the time of its stage 2 reply on 5 June 2023.
4. Despite giving a commitment in its stage 2 reply to progress the work to the patio doors as quickly as possible, the landlord had still not provided any meaningful update to the resident by the time she contacted the Ombudsman 4 months later in October 2023.
5. The landlord had still not provided the resident with any meaningful progress update prior to her chasing the landlord in March 2024.
6. At the time of providing an update to this Service in March 2025, the landlord had still not replaced the patio doors more than 2 years after its stage 1 reply.
7. The landlord did not produce and share with the resident clear, timely plans with timescales for carrying out the replacement of the patio doors.
This Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £900, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and had a significant impact. In this case, the resident was unable to replace the damaged flooring in her lounge and continued to experience water ingress through the patio doors, despite the landlord accepting in March 2023 that the doors needed to be replaced. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord on various occasions and therefore incurred time, trouble and inconvenience in trying to get the matter resolved. The Ombudsman has made orders to ensure the landlord deals with the outstanding remedial work in a timely manner.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the utility room and the landing area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration through the patio doors.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,700 compensation, comprised of:

£800 for the failures in dealing with the leak affecting the utility room and landing area.
£900 for the failures in dealing with the water ingress through the patio doors.
1. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a clear action plan with timescales for renewing the patio doors, replacing the defective glazing on the conservatory roof and making good any damage to the resident’s property. The plan should ensure the works are carried out in a timely manner and should take account of the requirements for section 20 consultation and any restrictions associated with the nesting falcon.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord seeks advice on measures it can take to prevent the nesting falcon from affecting/disrupting future repairs or major works to the building.