Clarion Housing Association Limited (202338682)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338682

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. The repairs to the ventilation unit and the associated damp and mould in the property.
2. Repairs to the loft insulation.
3. Repairs to the external drainage.
4. Pest infestations
5. The associated damage to his possessions.
The Ombudsman also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement that began on 21 July 2022. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord said it was aware the resident has ADHD. The resident told the Ombudsman he has ADHD, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, asthma, and a compromised immune system. The resident notified the landlord of this during the complaint procedure.
On 19 October 2023, the resident reported mice and squirrels in his loft. The landlord conducted a series of visits, where the loft was baited with rodenticide and checked periodically for pest activity. It was also found that the pests had damaged the resident’s belongings that had been stored in the loft space.
On 22 November 2023, the resident reported that his ventilation unit was not working properly. He explained that this was causing damp, mould, and moisture to build up, which he believed to be a fire safety hazard. The landlord assessed the unit and investigated whether it was still under warranty from the supplier and referred it to another team.
The resident made a complaint on 26 January 2024. He said:
1. The ventilation unit had been faulty for two years and he was concerned it had water damage from the moisture build-up from the damp and mould.
2. There was damp and mould in the majority of the rooms at his property which had exacerbated his asthma.
3. There was an ongoing issue with vermin that kept returning after the landlord had treated the property.
4. The landlord’s repair service had been poor because contractors had missed appointments, arrived late, and did not respond to his requests for updates.
5. He had not had a response regarding his claim to the landlord’s insurance provider for his damaged belongings.
On 7 March 2024, the landlord surveyed the drain to check for pest activity. Although no activity was found in the drains, the contractor recommended the neighbour’s drain be surveyed because of the shared roof. The contractor also confirmed it had found no further activity of rodents at the property. On 5 April 2024, the landlord replaced the resident’s ventilation unit.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 April 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for its delays in following up on the referral to another team for the repairs for the ventilation unit. It said it had replaced the unit on 5 April 2024.
2. It apologised for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and acknowledged the delay in replacing the unit had caused the resident distress. It also recognised the resident had said that his asthma had deteriorated.
3. It said it would not compensate the resident for damage to his belongings because the resident should not have stored his items in the loft. It said this was against its policy. It referred the resident to his contents insurer and also gave the details of its insurance providers to make a claim.
4. It offered the resident £550 to recognise its delays in conducting the repairs and providing its stage 1 response, the distress and inconvenience of chasing the repairs, conducting repeated visits, and to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 12 April 2024, the resident escalated his complaint because:
1. He was dissatisfied with the offer of compensation.
2. He felt the landlord had not considered the property conditions had been ongoing since 2021.
3. He said the landlord had not included correct information about all the repairs it carried out on the ventilation unit.
4. It had not responded to the vermin issues he had raised.
5. He had concerns about the drains not having covers which meant leaves were building up in the drainage system.
6. His loft was due to have further insulation installed but this had not been completed.
7. He wanted the landlord to pay for the running costs associated with the ventilation unit.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. The resident’s tenancy had not begun until 2022, therefore the repair issues could not have been reported before this time.
2. It did not agree there had been a continuous issue with repairs at the property because it had responded to a number of the resident’s reports.
3. It listed the appointments it had carried out to address the vermin issues and stated that no further activity was reported by its contractor on 7 March 2024. It asked the resident to report any new issues he was experiencing.
4. It did not have a record of the resident raising concerns about the drain covers, but it had arranged an appointment to assess this on 4 June 2024.
5. It had installed an additional layer of insulation in the resident’s loft on 14 February 2024 and considered the work to be completed.
6. It was unable to involve itself with the insurance claim because this fell outside of its internal processes. It said the resident needed to contact the insurance provider directly to ask for updates and to raise any concerns he had relating to this.
7. It offered the resident an additional £100 to recognise its delay in issuing its response and for failing to address the vermin concerns at stage 1.
The resident referred his case to the Ombudsman because:
1. The landlord had not learnt from its mistakes because he experienced similar issues at his former property.
2. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation because it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failures.
3. The pest issues had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that the issues with his ventilation unit and the damp and mould began at the time he began his tenancy in July 2022. He also explained that he had experienced issues with damp and mould at his former property and considered this issue to be a continuation of those he had experienced with his landlord previously.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.”

This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports of repairs relating to his current property. For clarity, the investigation has considered the events that occurred from January 2023 onwards. This is because this is 12 months before the resident’s formal complaint in January 2024.
The resident said he was dissatisfied with the handling of his insurance claim by the landlord’s insurance provider. He explained that there had been delays in processing the claim and that he had not been provided with adequate communications.
Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme.”

The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer. This service is able to look at how the landlord’s responded to the resident’s concerns about the progress of his insurance claim.
The resident explained that the damp and mould in the property and the landlord’s handling of the repairs had caused his health conditions to worsen.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.”

The Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of the resident’s ill-health. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of the injury. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises.

Reports of repairs to the ventilation units and the associated damp and mould in the property

On 11 January 2023, the resident reported that the ventilation unit in his loft and his bathroom extractor fan had stopped working. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2023 to conduct a repair. The repair logs state the job was completed but there was no further detail provided.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s repair records did not contain important information about its findings during this appointment or any work it had undertaken as a result. This was a failure because the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord’s records to have contained important information about how it responded to the resident’s report. This was evidence of poor record keeping which meant the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably to the resident’s reports.
On 22 November 2023, the resident reported the ventilation unit was not working properly because it was blowing out cold air and the LED lights were not coming on. When the landlord attended on 23 November 2023, it said that it did not install the unit and that because it was under warranty this needed to be addressed with the contractor that installed it. The landlord referred this issue to another team to do this.
The resident continued to ask for an update on the repairs between 29 November 2023 and 12 January 2024. During this time the resident explained the carpets felt damp, the moisture build up was causing a fire hazard to the unit, and there was ongoing damp and mould in the bedroom, kitchen, and front room.
There is no evidence of the landlord actioning this report until the resident made a formal complaint on 26 January 2024. There is also no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s fire safety concerns. This was a significant failure because the landlord failed to respond in accordance with its repairs policy and carry out an emergency appointment to assess the resident’s fire safety concerns within 24 hours.
It is clear that after the resident’s complaint, the landlord had agreed to action the repairs and said it would call the resident with updates. There is evidence the resident was regularly contacting numerous employees of the landlord for updates during February 2024. However, the landlord failed to follow up with the resident on numerous occasions or to provide substantive updates. This was concerning because the landlord’s internal communications recognised the resident required regular updates because of his vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to take into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities and its need to manage the resident’s communications accordingly during this time.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord attended the property to conduct a mould wash. When it attended, the landlord said the resident needed to remove his blinds so that it could complete the work. The landlord said the appointment was not completed because the resident asked the operative to leave. The landlord’s operative said the resident had acted in a threatening manner. The resident explained that he thought the landlord would be responsible for taking down the blinds and when it was apparent the operative was not willing to do this, they were rude, and he asked them to leave.
Based on the evidence available to us, the Ombudsman is unable to draw a meaningful conclusion about what happened during this appointment. However, it is noted the landlord did not investigate this matter further or confirm whether it would have been willing to take the blinds down for the resident to complete the work. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed any further support it could provide to complete the work, and this was a failure.
The evidence shows that on 15 February 2024, the landlord was discussing the replacement of the ventilation unit because there had been a “wild goose chase” to find out who installed the unit and if it was still under warranty. It is unclear why the landlord did not have this information in its repair records. This was a significant record-keeping failure which exacerbated the delays the resident experienced in having the ventilation unit replaced.
The landlord raised an appointment for the ventilation unit to be assessed as well as the upgrade of the kitchen and bathroom fans for 22 February 2024. The repair records do not contain information about what happened during this appointment. This was evidence of poor record-keeping because the landlord should have been able to account for its findings and its subsequent approach.
On 29 February 2024, the landlord noted that the ventilation unit was wired into the boiler system. As a result, this made the repair more complex because gas-safe engineers needed to be consulted before a repair could be conducted. The landlord emailed the resident to explain the ventilation works were on hold because of this. Given this was 3 months after the resident’s initial report, which exceeded the 28-day timeframe in its repairs policy, the landlord ought to have communicated its progress and explained the reasons for its delays at an earlier stage. This could have mitigated the resident’s concerns and subsequent distress at the delays.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord arranged to carry out a mould wash to the bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom. However, it said that it was waiting for the guttering to be cleaned before it could complete the work and rescheduled this to 12 March 2024. The gutters were cleaned on 18 March 2024. However, it said it needed to wait for the walls to dry before it could complete the mould wash to ensure the treatment would be effective. The landlord completed the mould wash on 8 April 2024. There is no evidence it considered alternative ways of mitigating the damp and mould in the property whilst it delayed in completing the mould wash.
Given the landlord was aware of the damp and mould issues in property in November 2023, the landlord took 4 months to carry out remedial works to mitigate the damp and mould in the property. This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay caused by the landlord’s failure to action the resident’s reports of damp and mould. In addition, the landlord ought to have considered any further measures it could have put in place to mitigate the damp and mould such as the use of a dehumidifier.
On 11 March 2023, the repair records show there was an appointment to “straighten the fans that have been installed.” There are no further notes about this appointment. On the same day, the resident emailed to landlord and said an electrician had attended and told him to change the humidistat setting and when he tried this the fans were on full speed, and it had not been set properly. He asked the landlord to reset the unit because it was running at full speed. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it advised the resident to keep the fan on to allow it to work to capacity.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s record-keeping was poor because its repair records did not contain important information about this appointment such as its findings and any follow-up works required. This caused the resident further time and trouble chasing repairs for the unit. This meant that it was unclear to the resident and the Ombudsman what advice the resident received or the findings of the landlord about whether the landlord considered the unit to be working or in need of repair.
At this time, the resident also asked the landlord to compensate him for the running costs of the ventilation unit if it needed to be running constantly to prevent damp and mould. The landlord responded to this in its stage 1 response and said it would not compensate the resident for the running costs of the unit because this would be his responsibility.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord was not liable for the running costs of the ventilation unit and the landlord was entitled to explain this to the resident. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have assessed the humidistat settings to ensure the unit was working at optimum capacity, but there is no evidence it did this. This was a failure to action the resident’s report.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord replaced the ventilation unit. This was 5 months after the resident’s initial report. The Ombudsman considers this an unreasonable delay in completing the required work. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to explore whether the unit was under warranty, it ought to have had this information available to ensure it acted in accordance with the response times in its repairs policy (28 days).
The landlord recognised in its stage 1 response (April 2024) that:
1. It did not follow up on the initial referral in November 2023, and this caused a delay in raising any follow-up appointments to repair the unit.
2. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. It conducted repeated visits.
4. It failed to follow process.
5. The resident was inconvenienced and had to chase repairs to the ventilation unit and the damp and mould.

It apologised for these issues and said it had fed this back to relevant colleagues to prevent this from happening again. It offered the resident £550 to recognise its failings.

While it was positive to note the landlord took responsibility for these failures, the Ombudsman considers this was not sufficient to address the impact on the resident for:
1. Its failure to demonstrate it acted on the resident’s fire safety concerns in November 2023 as an emergency.
2. Its failure to provide regular updates to the resident between November 2023 and February 2024.
3. Its failure to keep adequate records about the ventilation unit to identify whether the machine was under warranty and the impact of this on its delays.
4. Its failure to action the resident’s concerns about the humidistat settings of the ventilation unit in March 2024.
5. Its failure to consider how it could mitigate the damp and mould whilst it was waiting for the gutters to be cleaned and the ventilation unit to be replaced.
Taken together the landlord’s failures were evidence of maladministration and are likely to have inconvenienced the resident and caused him some distress. Having carefully considered the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the resident an additional £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

Repairs to the external drainage

The resident explained that he had concerns that his external drains required covers to prevent leaves from building up and causing issues. The Ombudsman has been unable to find evidence of this issue being raised before 26 April 2024. The landlord responded by arranging an appointment to assess this on 4 June 2024. The landlord said it was unable to gain access during the appointment because the resident was unhappy the operative had arrived late. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it was going to be late for the appointment. The evidence shows the landlord called the resident following the appointment to apologise and rebook the work, but the resident declined to rebook the work.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord attended outside of the timeslot it had initially booked with the resident to complete the work. The landlord is responsible for the delay of its operative, and this was a service failure. The landlord ought to have notified the resident it was delayed, however, the evidence shows the landlord tried to put things right because it apologised and tried to rebook the work. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances because it tried to put things right and this was reasonable in the circumstances to address its failure.

Repairs to the loft insulation

On 31 January 2024, while the landlord was completing a repair to the roof, it found the insulation in the resident’s loft was patchy and needed replacing. On 14 February 2024, the landlord attended to complete the work. The operative found there was double insulation already installed but continued to lay a third level of insulation.
The resident said he thought the insulation had not been completed and other specialist operatives such as an electrician had attended to complete the insulation but had failed to do so. He also explained to the Ombudsman that he was told by a roofing engineer that the insulation was not required. The Ombudsman was unable to find any evidence that we could use to draw a meaningful conclusion regarding the events the resident raised.
Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports about the insulation in his loft because it attended the property and installed a third layer of insulation.

Pest infestations

On 19 October 2023, the resident reported rats and/or squirrels in his loft. The landlord responded by raising a job for 6 visits by a pest contractor. It attended the property on 30 October 2023, to complete an initial treatment for rodents in the loft. The contractor said it found evidence of mice activity and laid rodenticide baits. It also laid bait for squirrels. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord went on to attend the property as follows:
1. On 13 November 2023, it inspected accessible bait points and found continued evidence of mice activity. It replenished the baits and said further control and monitoring was required. It noted it had not found any dead mice and there were no hygiene or structural issues with the property found.
2. On 29 November 2023, the landlord found all of the bait had been consumed by mice, but it had not found any dead bodies. It said 3 further treatments were required to monitor and control the issue due to ongoing activity.
3. On 13 December 2023, the landlord found a small number of droppings but no dead bodies. Further rodenticide baits were laid to monitor and control the infestation. It noted there were no hygiene or structural issues found during this appointment.
4. On 8 January 2024, the landlord attempted to inspect the property, but it could not gain access. It left a calling card and noted a follow-up appointment had been booked for 22 January 2024.
5. On 22 January 2024, the landlord found a low level of mouse activity, with a small amount of bait taken from the bait points. It recommended further visits are the mice were still active in the loft areas.
6. On 31 January 2024, the landlord attended to replace roof tiles that were missing and were a potential access point for vermin. It noted it installed 4 tile vents on the property.
7. On 8 February 2024, the landlord inspected the property and recommended a drain survey to assess further mice activity. The records did not explain the findings that led to this recommendation or if there was evidence of ongoing rodent activity.
8. On 23 February 2024, the landlord attempted to inspect the property, but it could not gain access. It left a calling card for the resident which asked him to call the office to arrange a further appointment.
9. On 7 March 2024, the landlord inspected the bait stations. It found that no further bait had been consumed or dead bodies found at the visit. It also noted there had been no further issues reported by the resident. It recommended that no further work was required.
The landlord’s repair records indicate it carried out a CCTV survey of the drains on 6 March 2023. It found there were no faults with the drain and the contractor recommended a CCTV survey of the neighbour’s manhole because they shared the roof with the resident. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this recommendation. On 15 March 2024, the resident reported that the vermin problems were ongoing.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s overall approach was reasonable. This is because the landlord attended the property at regular intervals to respond to and assess the rodent activity in the loft space. It also acted on the recommendations of its contractor by carrying out a CCTV survey of the drain. However, there is no evidence the landlord acted on the contractor’s recommendation to survey the neighbour’s manhole. This was a maladministration given the resident’s reports that the issue was ongoing within a week of the contractor’s visit. The landlord ought to have investigated the resident’s concerns further and considered the recommendations of its contractor. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because the landlord did not act on his reports.
With consideration being given to the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the resident an additional £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

Associated damage to the resident’s possessions

On 23 November 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the vermin issues had been ongoing and caused damage to belongings he had stored in the loft. Although the evidence shows the landlord referred the resident to its insurance indemnifier between November and December 2023, it is unclear exactly when it did this. This was a failure because it was evidence of poor record-keeping, however, it is noted this would not have impacted the resident.
On or around 7 December 2023, the resident was chasing the progress of the insurance claim with the landlord. The landlord explained to the resident that the matter was being dealt with by its insurance provider and because of the nature of the claim, the resident would need to have direct contact with them. The resident went on to make a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the lack of engagement from the insurance provider. The resident also asked the landlord to chase its insurance provider on his behalf.
The evidence shows the landlord referred the resident’s complaint to the insurer. In addition, between 4 January 2024 and 18 May 2024, the landlord chased the insurance provider on 8 occasions on the resident’s behalf. The Ombudsman considers this reasonable in the circumstances.
Whilst the resident’s claim was being decided by the insurer, the landlord wrote to the resident on two occasions (February and March 2024) to explain it could not accept liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings. It said the resident should not have stored his belongings in the loft area because this was against its policy. The resident said he had relied on the advice of the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy, who had said that he was able to store his belongings in the loft given that he had given up a garage facility when he had moved into the property.
During the landlord’s stage 2 response (May 2024) the landlord said that the liability for damage to possessions fell outside of the complaints process and the resident needed to have direct communication with the insurer about this issue.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord gave the resident mixed messages about its position on his claim for damaged possessions. It is unclear why the landlord had engaged with the resident regarding the potential liability of his claim in February and March 2024 when it had already said it had referred the matter to its insurer. This confused the resident because he thought the communication was the landlord deciding on the liability for his belongings.
This was maladministration because this caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also caused the resident further time and trouble because it drove further communications to the landlord about an issue that it said it would not decide on as part of the complaint’s procedure.
The resident told the Ombudsman he was confused about whether a decision had been made by the landlord’s insurer. The landlord must ask its insurance provider to write to the resident to confirm the status of his claim regarding his possessions.
With reference to the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its communications.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 26 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 April 2024. This was 53 working days later. This was inappropriate because this was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. This was 29 working days later. This was inappropriate because this was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code.
On both occasions the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delay in providing its formal responses. It offered the resident £50 at both stage 1 and stage 2 for its delays. The Ombudsman considers this reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord acknowledged its failure and tried to put things right.
When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that the landlord did not respond to his concerns about the pest infestations. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response and explained this was an oversight. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of its failure.
It was also positive to note that the landlord explained the learning it had taken on as part of the complaint’s procedure. It said that it needed to ensure it highlighted each matter as part of the formal complaint process and that it had shared this feedback with the relevant team to prevent this from occurring again.
Taking this together, the landlord’s complaint process acknowledged what had gone wrong and tried to put things right. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord sufficiently addressed its failures before the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair to the ventilation unit and the associated damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair to the external drainage.
In accordance with paragraph 52, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair to the loft insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation comprised as follows:
  1. £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the ventilation unit and damp and mould listed in paragraph 40.
  2. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s communications around the resident’s insurance claim.
  3. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failure to follow up on the resident’s reports of ongoing pests in March 2024.
3. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property and assess for the resident’s reports of ongoing pest infestations.
4. Liaise with its insurance provider and confirm the status of the resident’s claim for his belongings. It must ask its insurance provider to write to the resident to confirm the status of his claim and confirm to the resident it has done this.
5. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with the orders listed above.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord arrange for refresher training for relevant colleagues to ensure important information about repairs is recorded on its repair records such as key dates, key findings, and any advice provided to residents during appointments or after appointments. This is to ensure it has important information available to help it to action and investigate repairs.