Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202427118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427118

Kirklees Council

29 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs for damp and mould.
2. a bathroom replacement.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy that began on 28 May 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident told the landlord during the complaint procedure that her son was terminally ill.
The resident reported on 14 October 2022 that the downpipe at the side of her son’s bedroom was causing water ingress to the property. She also asked to raise a complaint about this. The resident raised a complaint on 17 October 2022 because repairs to the gutter had not been completed and had damaged her property. The landlord issued a stage 1 response explaining it would arrange an appointment within 5 days and provide her with insurance claim forms. It attended on 20 October 2022 and completed a job “for problems with the guttering”.
The landlord inspected the guttering again on 11 November 2022 and found there was a piece missing, causing water ingress and damp. It made “repairs” to the guttering on 3 February 2023 after subcontracting the work. It went on to make 3 more repairs between April and June 2023 for blocked drains causing water to overflow, broken pipework, and a missing fall pipe.
The resident made a complaint on 15 November 2023 and 21 November 2023 because she said:
1. there had been ongoing issues with damp and mould she thought were related to incomplete repairs to the guttering and roof.
2. there were slates missing from the roof and a hole in the pantry. And both were causing water ingress. However, no repairs had been carried out.
3. she had originally complained about the guttering in December 2022, but no work had been carried out.
4. an operative had attended on 20 November 2023 at the wrong time and “shouted” at her.
5. the damp and mould had impacted the kitchen and bathroom, and the health conditions of her terminally ill son, who had been given months to live.
6. she wanted to be compensated for the damage caused to her property by the roof leak, guttering, and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2023. It said:
1. it had:
  1. renewed the guttering on 30 November 2023, and this repair may have contributed to the damp in the bedroom. However, it had now been resolved.
  2. inspected the roof on 4 December 2023, and it would decide whether it needed to be repaired or replaced. It was aware that the last row of tiles to the roof needed remedial work. And it would carry this out as soon as possible.
  3. raised a job for a heating inspection and would be in touch “in due course”.
2. when it tried to inspect “recently”, it was not provided full access to the home, so it only assessed the condition of the bathroom. However, it had:
  1. asked its surveyor to carry out a full inspection, and they would arrange an appointment with her directly.
  2. found no sign of damp and mould in the property. But there were mould spores in the bathroom grout. However, the resident would be responsible for cleaning and regrouting this.
  3. could not comment on whether the condition of the property was impacting her son’s health, as it could not complete a full inspection.
3. it could not find an appointment for 20 November 2023. However, a repair for the shower rail was due to take place on 19 December 2023.
4. it had sent the resident an insurance claim form so that she could claim for any damage caused by the damp and mould. And that its insurance team would assess this.
The landlord raised an inspection of the damp and mould in the bathroom on 13 December 2023. It found mould treatment was needed in the bathroom. It also completed a damp survey on 11 July 2024 and found:
1. the living room window wall had high moisture readings and visible patches of moisture that “may be” penetrating damp.
2. the “kitchen store” had damaged plaster over the window which was “possibly” caused by a bathroom leak.
3. gaps under the skirting board in an upstairs cupboard. The resident had said this was allowing “bugs” into the property.
4. the bath and sink had no sealant, and the shower did not have a curtain. And the bath was leaking into the kitchen.
5. there was no toilet seat and a broken tile on the windowsill.
6. the bricks to the front elevation seemed to have been removed. There was a question about whether this was for insulation or cavity checks.
7. the resident “may require some additional support”.
The surveyor advised the resident of their findings. They said they would raise a series of “repairs” for the bathroom. This would include inspecting the integrity of the plumbing under the bath, which may have been causing the leak to the kitchen. “[And a] specialist referral [would be] required for [the] living room wall”. The landlord raised work on 16 July 2024 for repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, and upstairs cupboard.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 15 October 2024. When it called her, she said this was because of the condition of the kitchen and bathroom. And the ongoing associated damp and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. It said:
1. it had carried out a damp, mould, and condensation survey on 11 July 2024. It noted that there was follow-up work to be completed for joinery, plastering, and guttering. Since her escalation request the repairs had been prioritised and it had completed:
  1. joinery work to the skirting boards and the living room on 23 October 2024.
  2. repairs to the guttering on 4 November 2024. It found her guttering was not a problem, but the neighbours guttering needed to be replaced as part of “ongoing capital works”. It would arrange to complete this with her neighbour.
  3. plastering work to the living room and pantry on 8 November 2024.
2. it had asked its property service department to prioritise the remaining repair to refix the curtain rail. It would contact her directly to arrange.
3. the bathroom was due to be replaced under its cyclical scheme. It would arrange for an occupational therapy assessment during the week commencing 11 November 2024, so it could assess her son’s needs.
4. it would carry out a follow up call on 22 November 2024 to make sure the repairs had been completed.
5. it apologised for the delay in carrying out work and bathroom improvement. And offered £75 for the distress and inconvenience of this.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 15 January 2025 because:
1. the situation had caused her a lot of stress, and she was unhappy with the handling and management of the repairs.
2. there is ongoing damp and mould at the property affecting the bedrooms and bathroom.
3. repairs to the guttering remained outstanding, and the bathroom had not been renewed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us that she had raised concerns about the guttering and roof repairs as early as 2019. We also note she raised an enquiry to her MP during 2021 about these issues, which the landlord responded to formally. Further, she raised a complaint on 14 October 2022, but this did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure.
We recognise there is a history of reports by the resident. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise and progress complaints through the landlord’s complaint procedure in a timely manner so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues at the time and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident explained that her son had significant health conditions, including a terminal illness. She said the damp and mould had affected his bedroom to such an extent that he was no longer able to sleep in it. She also said that the conditions at the property were exacerbating his illness.
While this service is an alternative to the courts, we are 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 we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman 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. However, we have considered whether the landlord responded reasonably in the circumstances to the resident’s reports.

Repairs for damp and mould

The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, this includes drainage pipework and the roof within the boundary of the property. This is set out in s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects this.
Where there is damp and mould and this is caused by leaks – then the landlord will be responsible to ensure that it offers a full and effective repair to prevent the damp from returning.
The landlord’s repair policy commits to responding to repairs as follows:
1. emergency repairs in up to 2 working days.
2. responsive repairs within 25 days.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy that came into force in July 2024. This states that:
1. staff will be trained to identify and triage the severity of the damp, mould and condensation hazards raised and be able to prioritise surveys effectively. Residents’ individual circumstances and vulnerabilities will be identified at the earliest possible stage and the information used to prioritise and order works accordingly.
2. surveys will be completed by competent staff, or suitably qualified independent surveyors, utilising the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to capture information to prioritise any required repairs and remedial works, as well as data to influence future planned capital improvement programmes.
3. from the survey findings, the necessary treatments and work orders will be raised and commissioned to the relevant contractor(s), who will make access arrangements with the resident.
4. an outcome letter from the survey, detailing what was identified, any necessary works and the next steps will be sent to the resident. A copy of the survey and the outcome letter will be stored on its systems.
5. 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits will be arranged with residents who have reported damp, mould, and condensation hazards where repairs and remedial works have been completed.
The landlord was put on notice by the resident that the guttering was causing water ingress to her son’s bedroom on 14 October 2022. Its repair log said it completed a repair for “problems with [the] guttering and downpipes” on 20 October 2022.
While the landlord responded within a reasonable time to the resident’s report, it failed to demonstrate what it found at its inspection or what it did to remedy the problem. That it did not meant we could not be satisfied that the landlord carried out a proportionate inspection of the guttering, identified if there was water ingress into the bedroom, or that it completed reasonable repairs to remedy the problem.
Our spotlight report on ‘Damp and mould – it’s not a lifestyle’ published in October 2021 explains that good record keeping is essential to assist our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time of the landlord’s response. It also allows the landlord to better understand previous actions so that they can consider the most appropriate response to ongoing reports. The landlord’s record keeping undermined its ability to demonstrate it acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord raised a further work order on 27 October 2022 and found that there was a piece missing from the guttering and downpipe. And this was causing water ingress and damp. It is unclear what prompted this work order. It would have been reasonable to the repair record to have set this out. That it did not was a failure to maintain full records. Given the poor record keeping for the work it completed the week before this job was raised, it is unclear if the landlord missed an opportunity to accurately diagnose the problem at an earlier stage.
The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord regularly throughout November and December for repairs to be completed. The landlord had told the resident that it had a high workload so it could not give her an appointment. The landlord added the job to the “subcontracting spreadsheet” on 9 December 2022 and completed the job on 3 February 2023.
We recognise that there can be resourcing issues and this can have an impact on the overall time taken to complete repairs. However, the evidence shows the landlord relied on the resident’s intervention to provide updates on the progress of the repair.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould notes that Landlords should consider providing a single point of contact and a timeline of work and/or to providing updates to residents at set intervals. This includes when the matter has not progressed for a period of time to ensure residents are kept informed and can be assured that they have not been forgotten. Had it done so, this would have mitigated the time and trouble of the resident trying to get an update between November and December. That it did not proactively provide updates to the resident was a failure to meaningfully engage with her about its delay.
Further, the evidence shows the landlord only placed the job on the subcontractor list after the resident had said she would employ a private contractor if the work was not completed. It is unclear if the resident’s intervention prompted this action by the landlord. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained that it intended to subcontract the work at the earliest opportunity and to have noted this in its repair logs. That it did not was a failure to demonstrate it had engaged with the resident about the steps it was taking to prioritise the repair. This caused her distress and frustration.
There is also no evidence that the landlord assessed or attempted to treat any damp caused by the water ingress either at the time of its inspections or subsequently. This was a failure to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate steps to reasonably assess and mitigate the conditions at the property. This was a missed opportunity to show the resident it was taking her concerns about internal damp seriously.
The landlord’s repair logs reflected it had raised a job because the wastepipe was “in a dangerous condition” on 14 April 2023. It said the pipe was leaking and water was overflowing onto the path. It is unclear when the resident reported this event. The landlord noted it completed work for this job on 17 April 2023, which was 2 working days later. While this was within the timeframes in its repair policy, the records, again, did not capture important information about what it found at its inspection and the work it completed to remedy the issue. That it did not was a missed opportunity to expressly document its findings and the remedial action it took.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord’s repair records noted that a fall pipe was missing from the gutter and needed renewing. It also mentioned this was causing damp and mould to a “vulnerable” person in the property. The records say the job was completed on 6 July 2023. Similarly, the landlord responded within 25 days which was in line with its repair policy. However, the records missed important information about what it found and what it did at the appointment. This was a failure to demonstrate that it took adequate steps to inspect and rectify the issue with the guttering.
At this stage, the resident had repeat problems with her guttering. Had the landlord’s record keeping captured the details of investigations and the remedial work carried out to date, it is likely it could have accounted for whether it had made lasting and effective repairs to the guttering. Or if these issues were separate. The level of record keeping meant that we were not satisfied the landlord had made lasting and effective repairs to the guttering at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord noted that it completed a job to cement a hole near the drainpipe area left from a “recent” repair. This was on 1 November 2023. Similarly, there is no evidence of what prompted this work to be raised 4 months after the landlord’s former attendance. This was a missed opportunity to set out the events that led to its intervention. And another gap in landlord’s the record keeping.
On 4 November 2023 the resident reported an uncontainable leak through “the cubby hole and near the electrics”. She said, “it was unclear if this was coming from the roof or bathroom”. The repair log notes that the plumber appropriately attended the same day, but they could not turn off the water supply. However, the job was completed and follow on works were raised to repair the ceiling removed “to repair the leak”. The follow on work for the plastering in the bathroom was completed within 4 days, which was within the timeframes of the repair policy.
However, the evidence indicates the landlord was able to trace and fix the leak at the emergency appointment, but did not reflect its findings or the remedial work in its repair log. As such, the cause of the leak and whether this was linked to the guttering, roof, or bathroom is unclear. This was a failure to document its investigations into, and the steps taken to resolve, the cause of the leak. An accurate audit trail of what was identified, what action was taken and when should reasonably have been maintained.
While carrying out further follow-up work raised from this event, the landlord noted on the same job dated 4 November 2023, there was contaminated plaster in the kitchen pantry. It rectified this on 9 February 2024 and installed a vent on 23 February 2024. This indicates that there was an issue with damp or mould in this area. The landlord took overall 76 days to respond to this issue and install ventilation, which is outside of the timeframes in its repairs policy. There is no evidence that this was the earliest available appointment to carry out the work or that it explained its delay to the resident. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that the landlord acted in a timely manner to progress the repair.
When the resident made her complaint on 15 November 2023, she explained there was “severe black mould”, and this was affecting her because of her age and the other illnesses in the household. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns around vulnerabilities. It ought to have engaged with her about this and considered what support was appropriate to offer. As a minimum, it should have signposted her to her GP for further medical support. That it did not was a failure to demonstrate it responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns. Or that it considered the vulnerabilities further.
The repair logs note that on 16 November 2023 it raised jobs to replace the roof tiles and to check the rear elevation. The landlord also raised work to repoint the gable wall to the damp proof course line, repoint the chimney stack, and secure and repoint the ridge tiles. This was after the resident’s complaint.
Although this work was completed in a timely manner (within 18 days) the repair logs failed to explain what inspections had taken place and when, and if it found the roof was found to be the cause of the leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect and repair the roof, given its concerns about whether this was the cause of the leak. However, it ought to have documented its conclusions about this. That it did not was a failure to fully set out its conclusions about why it was reasonable to carry out the work it did. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord was progressing an inspection of the roof prior to the resident’s intervention. It should not have relied on the resident to progress investigations into the leak.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response (1 December 2023) it had found no “visible signs of damp and mould in the [kitchen and bathroom]” but agreed that the guttering may have contributed to damp in the rear bedroom. It said it had requested a damp surveyor to attend the property.
It was reasonable to arrange a damp survey, however, it is unclear why this was not considered at an earlier opportunity, given the resident had expressed concerns about damp and mould as early as October 2022. And there is no evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate this as part of its inspections. Therefore, it is unclear how the landlord concluded there was no damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom. This position also conflicts with its repair records in November 2023, which had identified contaminated plaster and recommended ventilation to the kitchen pantry. Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had investigated and sought to mitigate the extent of the damp and mould while it carried out lasting repairs to the gutters and roof.
The landlord completed a damp survey on 12 July 2024. This was 433 days after it was first made aware of the damp and mould in October 2022. And 154 days after it had committed to undertaking a survey. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the reasons for its delay or why it had not considered this before this point. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that this was the earliest opportunity it could have carried out a damp inspection or that there was a good reason for the delay.
This was concerning to note, given the resident had reported in January 2024 that her son was terminally ill, and she was concerned about the damp and mould in the bedroom. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this by considering prioritising the survey or any actions it could carry out in the meantime. This was a missed opportunity to identify any risks posed by the damp and mould or to consider its repair approach in light of the vulnerabilities it was aware of.
The landlord did carry out an inspection of the bathroom on 22 April 2024. It is unclear what prompted this visit. It found that no mould treatment was needed in the bathroom. The resident had made reports about damp in the bedroom and kitchen, and this was documented on the repair log. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord did not carry out an inspection of these areas at the time. This was a missed opportunity to assess the extent of the problem and to consider what it could do to mitigate this while it carried out a damp survey.
The damp survey findings are set out earlier in this report. It was noted the resident may need further support. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy in force at this time is committed to identifying residents’ individual circumstances and vulnerabilities at the earliest possible stage and using the information to prioritise and order works accordingly. Therefore, it was appropriate for the surveyor to note this. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to consider this further. This was a missed opportunity to try and support the resident further with the concerns it had about her.
Further, although the landlord raised work on 16 July 2024, it did not provide evidence of progressing or attending to the repairs until after the resident escalated her complaint on 15 October 2024. This is a 3 month delay, and there is no evidence setting out the reason for this. Nor is there any evidence it communicated about the delay to the resident. Therefore, we could not be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to progress the repairs during this time.
The landlord tried to arrange an appointment for the repairs to take place on 18 October 2024. However, the resident was concerned about having a 4 hour appointment. She then cancelled all the outstanding work. While there may be many reasons why an appointment may not be suitable, the resident’s actions contributed to this short delay in the landlord carrying out the necessary work to resolve the damp and mould.
The landlord completed the work on the skirting boards on 23 October 2024. Between 1 and 8 November 2024, the landlord attended to complete the plastering and guttering work. The complaint log noted that although the plastering was completed, “the resident’s gutters [were] fine” but a section of the neighbour’s required replacing. It completed work on the neighbour’s guttering on 9 December 2024. This was over 2 years after the landlord was put on notice for damp and mould.
Further, there was no evidence that the landlord investigated the plumbing under the resident’s bath. This is concerning to note, given that the surveyor in July 2024 considered this may be causing the leak in the kitchen. Further, there was no evidence that the landlord had engaged a specialist surveyor to inspect the living room wall. That it did not evidence progressing these investigations was a failure to demonstrate it had acted on the recommendations of its surveyor.

Conclusion

There was a theme of the landlord failing to document its investigations and the remedial work it carried out throughout the complaint. We believe this contributed to its overall delay in co-ordinating remedial work and making lasting and effective repairs to the leak in the kitchen and bathroom and to the penetrating damp.
The landlord also failed to show regard for the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household and to progress the follow on work required to the gutters, roof, and those identified by its surveyor in July 2024. This caused the resident a loss of enjoyment because she was living in a property with intermittent leaks over a period of 2 years. This caused the resident time, trouble, and distress trying to get the landlord to progress inspections and follow on work. At times, the landlord failed to act until the resident intervened. It also consistently failed to engage with the resident about its delays and intentions towards repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the “disturbance and inconvenience” as well as the time it took to carry out repairs. It also offered £75 to acknowledge this. On 21 November 2024, after the complaint procedure was exhausted, it wrote to the resident to offer her further compensation. It agreed to compensate her £600 for the impact of damp and mould over a prolonged period, and a decoration allowance totalling £190.
We consider the landlord made some attempt to put things right, and its later offer of compensation combined with the decoration allowance was reasonable to address some of the failings identified in this investigation. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not make its final offer of compensation during the complaint process. Further, it did not demonstrate that it had taken any wider learning from the complaint or explain what it would do to improve its repair approach in the future. Nor did it evidence it had progressed all of the actions recommended by its surveyor. In light of this, we have made a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the damp and mould.
To remedy this, the landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping, identifying how it can improve its standards to improve its approach to coordinating inspections and repairs, and explaining its delays. It must also arrange for the recommendations of its surveyor to be progressed, specifically, the survey of the living room wall and the integrity of the plumbing under the bath. If it has already done this, it must provide evidence of having done so.
The landlord must also arrange for appropriate vulnerability training to ensure its staff are in the best position to respond to residents’ concerns. This must include what it can do to support residents through protracted repairs.

Bathroom replacement

During the landlord’s investigations into the complaint, it noted the bathroom was due to be replaced as part of its “bathroom scheme”. It said in its stage 2 response that it would try to prioritise this and wanted the resident’s son to be present while it “planned” the bathroom to ensure it was suitable. And that it would be in contact with an appointment the week commencing 11 November 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances because it set out its position and that it would work with the resident to ensure the bathroom was suitable for her son.
The landlord also provided evidence it had discussed accommodating the household while it replaced the bathroom, including the use of temporary accommodation. This demonstrated the landlord had reasonably considered the extent of the work and how to mitigate the impact of this on the vulnerabilities in the household. The resident has since explained she does not want her bathroom to be replaced.
Having considered the evidence available to us, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom replacement. This is because it acted reasonably to explain its position and considered the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son.

Complaint handling

Our 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 landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, on 21 November 2023. It issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code for acknowledging and responding to stage 1 complaints.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. This was 18 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. This was in accordance with the timeframes set out in the Code when responding at stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
At the close of the stage 1 response, the landlord set out actions it would take to inspect the property for damp and mould. The evidence shows that in the months that followed, the resident continued reporting this was an issue. The landlord is obligated to ensure that outstanding actions are tracked and actioned promptly, with appropriate updates provided to the resident. There is no evidence it did this. This caused the resident’s time and trouble re-reporting the damp and mould.
The landlord missed an opportunity through its complaint procedure to ensure the damp survey was carried out in a timely manner and to account for its delays. This was a departure from the Code that impacted the landlord’s ability to engage meaningfully with the resident about its intentions to resolve the damp and mould.
In light of this, we consider there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident, pay £50 in recognition of its failure. And conduct complaint handling training to ensure relevant staff are that outstanding actions completed, and residents are updated.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs for damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. if it has not already done so, pay the resident the compensation it has already offered in relation to this matter.
4. arrange for:
  1. the outstanding recommended investigations into the integrity of the bathroom plumbing and lounge wall to be completed. If it has already done so, it must provide evidence of this to us.
  2. complaint handling training for relevant staff members to ensure they track outstanding tasks and provide updates about these to residents after complaint responses have been issued.
  3. vulnerability training for relevant staff to ensure they are in the best position to understand vulnerabilities and how it may support these residents through protracted repairs.
Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must assess its record keeping for the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’: 2,3,7, and 8.