London Borough of Hackney (202225779)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225779

London Borough of Hackney

26 March 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 reports of drainage, flooding, damp, mould and floor issues.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord whose tenancy began in November 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom basement flat. While the landlord has recorded no vulnerabilities for the resident, it noted that she described herself in correspondence as having severe anxiety.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to urgent repairs in 5 working days and routine repairs within 21 working days. Its website says it will inspect all reports of damp and mould within 5 working days.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Summary of events

In July 2019 the landlord inspected the resident’s floor after her report that vinyl tiles were cracked and lifting in the hallway and lounge. Later, in September 2019, the landlord noted the floor had not been prepared properly and that a “recall” was needed. It is not apparent from records seen what action was taken following this.
In January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team about a blocked drain outside her front door. She said that when it rained she could not use her front door because of the flooding, which came past her ankles. She said she would need to wear plastic bags over her feet. She said she had reported this to the landlord a number of times. Later that month the landlord noted it attended to look at the drain issue. It noted a possible break in the gully pot and that a CCTV survey was needed to confirm this. Records indicate a survey of the drain issue was eventually completed on 6 May 2021. However, no record has been provided showing what investigations were undertaken at the time, or the results.
Repair records show that the landlord raised a work order on 19 August 2021 to inspect “extensive damage” to the resident’s property from damp and mould on walls, flooring and ceiling. An inspection was undertaken the following day, later confirmed by the resident. But the landlord recorded no details about the findings of this inspection.
At the end of September 2021 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said she was concerned about rising damp in her flat as clothing, shoes and furniture had been damaged by mould and would need to be thrown away. She said:
1. her flooring was uneven and had bits of glass showing through in the hallway and she had raised this issue in 2019, but did not hear back.
2. she had reported about 6 times that the front patio of her flat flooded when it rained. She said this was still unresolved and it was “so frustrating” that the landlord had not responded about this. She said she believed this was contributing to the dampness in her flat.
3. a surveyor had attended in August 2021 and had said there was little ventilation in the lounge, but then she heard nothing further.
4. she was no longer using her lounge as she found it upsetting and she was concerned it was impacting her health.
5. she considered the bathroom extractor did not work well and needed changing.
Following this further complaint, in October 2021 the landlord noted it had obtained the report of the drain survey of May 2021 and that a heavy-duty manhole cover was the only recommendation of the survey report. At the end of October, the resident told the landlord that workmen attended to install a drain cover. She said this had been placed over the drain that did not suffer blockages, and she was confused about how this would resolve her concerns. She also said she believed her floors and walls were not properly damp proofed and felt that no one from the landlord was really “hearing” her. The landlord’s repair records show it inspected the resident’s bathroom extractor fan on 12 November 2021 and it noted a new one would improve air quality.
There is no evidence of any further significant action until February 2022. At this time, a contractor attended the resident’s property to complete a further survey. It noted mould in the lounge, and on furniture in the lounge and hallway. It recommended upgrading the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans and applying anti-fungal barrier paint to stop further mould growth. The contractor also noted a report from the resident of flooding after persistent rain. It noted there was a build-up of sludge in the drain and a possible crack in the soil pipe. In April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again about what was happening. She said again she could not use her lounge as everything she put in there became damaged.
On 18 May 2022 the landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the resident’s property. Repair records do not show any contemporaneous note of this inspection, however the surveyor set out details of his visit in an internal email of 13 June 2022. At this time the surveyor noted:
1. airflow within the property needed to be reviewed as there was evidence of mould growth on clothes and furniture, and he had raised a work order for ventilation to be reviewed.
2. there was no sign of mould or damp on the walls and ceiling.
3. a large studwork area in the lounge should be opened up to determine what was behind this with the aim of reducing its size, and a work order had been raised.
4. a work order had been raised to check for drain blockages and to ensure that these were flowing freely.
5. the communal patio in front of the resident’s property should be assessed as rainwater flow appeared to be in the direction towards the resident’s property. He noted a work order had been raised.
6. on completion of any internal work, it was to provide new flooring to replace the existing poorly laid tiles.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 June 2022. It apologised for the long delay in responding to her complaint. It also acknowledged that:
1. it had delayed after a CCTV survey of the drains was undertaken in May 2021 due to an administrative error and it apologised for this.
2. the drain survey of May 2021 recommended installing a heavy-duty manhole cover, which it had done in October 2021. It said it had received no reports of drainage issues since then.
3. it had been unable to obtain the inspection report of 20 August 2021 relating to the resident’s damp and mould concerns. However, the surveying team said it had been waiting for the drain work before it raised any internal work.
4. the resident had complained it had not responded to her flooring concerns in 2019.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of action since to 2019 to address the issues she had raised. It said it would be in contact to provide estimates for work actions. It provided contact details to the resident of the manager handling the work. It said that, in line with its compensation guide, it had awarded the resident £1,500 to recognise the avoidable delays in resolving issues.
On 3 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she agreed with most of its response but raised the following concerns:
1. she disagreed that the manhole cover had done anything to resolve the drain issue.
2. she still believed there was a problem with the walls, and she considered damp proofing was needed. She said she was still not able to use her lounge.
Between August and November 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint and a timescale for work. She said she felt “exasperated”, that she had been patient with the landlord but felt “let down”. Amongst other things she said:
1. she still believed the walls needed damp proofing and she had needed to throw further shoes away.
2. the drain at the front of the property was still blocked and would flood when it rained. She said she would experience “an overwhelming smell of damp” in her flat for days after. She attached a photo.
3. it was “unfair and frustrating” that she could not have friends round as she was still living in her bedroom surrounded by boxes.
In December 2022 the landlord told the resident it wanted to re-survey the issues of mould at her property. While the landlord’s records contain no details of its subsequent inspection the resident later confirmed that it had attended in January 2023 to look at ventilation. After the resident contacted us in February 2023 the landlord wrote to her outlining that it would aim to provide her with a stage 2 response to her complaint by 17 March 2023. In March 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord that further ventilation had been installed in her bedroom and hallway.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 April 2023. It acknowledged there were a number of avoidable delays and it apologised for the frustration this caused her. It said it had shared findings from the investigation to ensure the repairs team and contractors monitored work to a timely completion. It offered the resident compensation of £1,815 which it said was made up of £1,140 for avoidable delay, £600 for time and trouble and £75 to recognise that it had taken 9 months to provide her with a stage 1 complaint response. It noted she had received £1,500 during its stage 1 response and so offered to pay her a further £315. The landlord said it would monitor the outstanding work.
The resident told us in March 2024 that the issues with the drains flooding at the front of her property remained unresolved. She said no internal work, such as the flooring and the investigation of the studwork area in her lounge, had been completed since the stage 2 response. She said she had received no contact from the landlord about this work. She said she made little use of her lounge due to it being filled with boxed up furniture and her concerns of damage to this while work remained outstanding. She said this room also smelt damp, particularly in the days after the patio area at the front of her flat flooded.
The landlord told us the case had been passed to its disrepair team who were to contact the resident to agree a full survey. It said once this had been done it would supply a full scope of works and agree a start date.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of issues with her flooring, which she first raised in July 2019. However, we have seen no evidence of further reports about flooring issues by the resident until she raised a complaint in September 2021. In view of this, our consideration of the resident’s concern about repairs to her floor will focus on the landlord’s handling this matter since September 2021. However, some detail relating to the report she made in 2019 has been included for context.

Handling of reports of drainage, flooding, damp and mould and floor issues

Drainage and flooding issues

The resident reported issues with her drains in January 2021. She complained at this time that the issue remained unresolved despite her making a number of reports. While the landlord’s repair records for the block and for the resident’s flats do not record earlier reports, it also failed to make any record of her report of January 2021. This is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord and is likely to have contributed to its poor monitoring of progress towards resolving this issue. It is apparent that some steps were taken to investigate. For instance, internal emails note it attended and identified a possible break in the gully pot and the need to complete a CCTV survey. But progress towards completing this survey was slow. It is acknowledged that the landlord needed to arrange specific equipment to complete the survey, but it is unclear why this took several months. The landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately updated during this time. She contacted the landlord 3 times in March 2021 to ask about progress, without response.
It was not until the resident made a further complaint to the landlord in September 2021 that it took any steps to act on the findings of the drain survey of May 2021. The lack of evidence of the details of this survey within the landlord’s records is further evidence of a failure in record keeping. It later noted in October 2021 that the only recommendation of this survey was to install a heavy-duty manhole cover. However, the landlord queried internally in October 2021 whether this would be effective in resolving the drain issue. It was clear the resident shared this concern. After it had been installed at the end of October 2021, she expressed her concerns this work had been completed to the drain that did not suffer blockages. Given the resident’s clear concerns about the work it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain how it considered the drain issue may be resolved by the manhole cover. Instead, she was left feeling the issue had not been properly resolved.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response of June 2022 that it received no further reports of drainage issues after the manhole cover was installed in October 2021. But there is clear evidence the issue with the drains, and floodings, remained a problem after this date. When a contractor visited the property on 8 February 2022, it noted a report from the resident of flooding, and that there was a build-up of sludge in the drain and a possible cracked soil pipe. The landlord should have investigated this further, but there is no evidence it did so. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor the area for a period after the installation of the manhole cover. This is particularly given the landlord’s misgivings about how effective the installation of the cover would be.
The landlord’s surveyor attended in May 2022 and looked at the drain and flooding issue and later noted that a work order would be raised to check the drains for blockages. He also noted he had raised a work order to assess the patio for redirecting rainwater flow away from the resident’s flat. Despite these work orders being raised by the landlord in June 2022, there is no evidence of any progress until over a year later. While it appears from the records that the landlord had sent part/all of this work to a contractor, it should have maintained oversight to ensure timely completion of the work. The landlord should do so for any repair, but particularly so in this case where there had already been significant delay and the matter was subject of a complaint.
Repair records note the work order to clean drains, raised in June 2022, was completed on 18 July 2023. But no further details of this work were set out. The landlord’s records also note it received an estimate for work to alter the patio rainwater flow on 20 July 2023, but records do not contain this estimate. Nor is there evidence the landlord has taken any steps to consider this work or note why it is not being taken forward. Instead, no apparent further action has been taken to address the issue.
Overall, the landlord poorly recorded and monitored actions to resolve the drain and flooding issues that the resident raised with the since January 2021. Furthermore, the issue remains unresolved for the resident. The landlord was aware the matter had been ongoing for over 2 years by the time of its stage 2 response, and that steps previously agreed had been significantly delayed. It assured the resident in its stage 2 response that it would monitor outstanding work, but there is no evidence it took any appropriate steps to do so. It should reasonably have been apparent to the landlord that oversight of the work was needed in these circumstances. Not doing was a significant failure. As a result it has not progressed all outstanding work to resolve drain and flooding issue.
The resident told us that the issue of drains flooding remains unresolved. The landlord’s repair records show it attended the property to unblock drains outside her door in November 2023. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any steps to communicate with the resident since its stage 2 response to establish if any of the work undertaken had resolved the drainage and flooding issue. In light of this, an order had been made that the landlord contact the resident in order to arrange a full review of the flooding and drainage issue. The overall impact on the resident of the landlord’s failure to appropriately address this issue has been considered together with the impact of other repair failures identified below.

Damp and mould and flooring issues

The landlord’s website says that it will inspect damp and mould issues within 5 working days. Its records note on 19 August 2021 that it was to inspect damp and mould, and while it did not make adequate record of its inspection, the resident confirmed the landlord attended the following day. However, subsequently, the resident complained at the end of September 2021 that she had not heard back following this. The landlord was unable to obtain a report of the visit of August 2021, which is further evidence of its poor record keeping. However, it later said that the surveying team dealing with the matter had said it had not raised work following this inspection while it waited for the drain issue to be resolved. But it did not explain this to the resident. It is clear she was expecting to hear further after the inspection of August 2021.
When the landlord attended again in November 2021 and February 2022 it noted the need to upgrade extractor fans at the property. But nothing was done about this until after the inspection in May 2022. The reasons for this delay are unclear– its repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 21 working days. There was no drain work being undertaken at that point, and no apparent reason to delay this work for that reason in any case. Instead, it seems the landlord was slow to act on the findings of inspections. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which sets out that landlords need to be proactive when responding to damp and mould reports. The resident had told the landlord of the impact the issues with damp and mould were having on her in September 2021. She said she felt unable to use her lounge and that her possessions had been damaged due to the issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take the steps it had identified may help to resolve issues as soon possible, instead of waiting several months.
It is acknowledged that the landlord eventually arranged for the upgrade of extractor fans in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen in June 2022. Later it arranged for installation of extractor fans in the hallway and bedroom after a contractor attended in January 2023 to look again at ventilation issues. But it made no record of any of this work in its repair records. On both occasions it needed to check with the resident what work had been completed. This was further evidence of record keeping failings. It is also noted it made no record of the findings of its contractor’s attendance at the resident’s property in January 2023. Lack of clear records can only have impacted on the landlord’s ability to monitor and evidence that it was taking appropriate steps to address the resident’s damp and mould report in line with its repair obligations.
The resident repeatedly raised concerns that there was an issue with the walls within her property that she believed may be contributing to damp and mould issues. She told the landlord of damage to furniture and belongings placed against walls, and of her concerns that walls in the property may need damp proofing. The resident also expressed her concerns that the ongoing issue with drainage and flooding, and the cracked/uneven flooring, may be contributing in some way to the issues she was experiencing. This concern was understandable. The resident’s property is basement flat and she has reported an overwhelming smell of damp for a period after flooding to the front of her property. But there is no evidence the landlord sought to fully investigate the resident’s concerns around this.
By November 2022 the resident’s frustration with the ongoing situation was apparent from her correspondence to the landlord. In this she said she was “exhausted” at having to repeat herself and found it “unfair” and frustrating” that she could not have friends round as she was living in her bedroom “surrounded by boxes”. In later correspondence she told the landlord she was “depressed” and feeling extremely unwell living in this way. While work has been completed to upgrade/install extractor fans at the property, which the resident confirmed improved the situation, the landlord has taken no steps to rectify flooring or undertake investigate the studwork area in the resident’s lounge, despite saying it would do this following its inspection of May 2022. In addition, it told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would monitor work to ensure it was completed as soon as possible. But work remains outstanding.
Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage, flooding, damp and mould and floor issue. The resident has told the landlord since September 2021 of her reluctance to use her lounge as she was concerned about the impact on her health and about further belongings being damaged. She continued to tell the landlord that she was not using her lounge and had instead left furniture in boxes while she waited for all drainage, damp, mould and flooring work to be completed. Despite this, at no time did the landlord seek to provide her with any clear timeframe or programme for the work. Instead, there were repeated large delays where little was done to address issues or schedule work. Not only has this impacted on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her lounge since September 2021, it has caused her significant upset and frustration.
The landlord recognised in its complaint responses that there was an avoidable delay in it completing repair work and awarded her £1,140. In addition it acknowledged the resident had expended time and trouble, for which it awarded £600. The landlord’s calculation of the avoidable delay appears to be based on a sum of £10 per week since January 2021, which was in line with guidance provided within the landlord’s compensation guidance in place at this time. However, we consider this amount inadequately recognises the degree to which its failings impacted on the resident. With consideration of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have considered the resident’s loss of amenity (loss of use of her lounge) since September 2021. This is because we consider, in the circumstances, that it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation that recognises fully the period of time the resident has been unable to enjoy and make full use of her lounge.
This loss of amenity has been calculated as 30% of the property. We have noted the resident has paid weekly rent since September 2021 of between £103.50 and £116.10. Using these amounts, we have calculated the total compensation ordered for loss of amenity as £4,297. This represents 30% of the rent payment from September 2021 to date. It is acknowledged that this is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount to recognise impact of the landlord’s failing on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her lounge.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident initially complained to the landlord about the drain issue in January 2021. It acknowledged her complaint soon after receipt and told her of an average complaint response time of 10 working days. Despite this by September 2021, when she made a further complaint, the resident was still waiting to receive a response to her initial complaint. At the point the resident made her further complaint there was no apparent action being taken by the landlord to progress her initial concerns about the drains. This indicates the landlord had lost track of the case as a live complaint and repair report.
It was not until the end of June 2022 that it provided her with a stage 1 response to her complaint. That was an exceptionally long and unreasonable delay, far in excess of the landlord target timescale of 10 working days. While the landlord took steps during this time to undertake a further survey, and set out work to be completed to the property, it was not reasonable to delay responding to her complaint during this time. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) efforts to resolve concerns should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint and apologised for this. But it made no consideration at this time of making a separate award of compensation to the resident to recognise this. It should have done so. It had delayed by almost 18 months in responding since her initial complaint. Although the landlord later made an award of £75 to recognise complaint handling delays in its stage 1 response, it only recognised the 9-month delay. That did not take into account the preceding 9-month period when the resident was waiting for the landlord to respond to her initial complaint. It also failed to acknowledge that the resident had needed to go to the time and trouble of making a further complaint before getting a response.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 July 2022 yet, despite telling her it had done so at the end of July, it then de-escalated the complaint without telling her. This was on the basis it considered more could be done to resolve the complaint at stage 1. Not only did this further delay the resident receiving a full response to her complaint, there is no evidence the landlord then took any reasonable steps to attempt to resolve her concerns during that time. It did nothing to look into either of her concerns – that the drain issue was unresolved, and her belief that walls needed to be damp proofed. Instead, the resident was left frustrated at the lack of action or response from the landlord about when work would be undertaken to resolve her concerns. This is apparent from emails she sent the landlord between August and November 2022, when she expressed her escalating frustration and feeling that she had let down by the landlord. That this was happening at a time she was struggling with depression and anxiety can only have exacerbated matters. The landlord’s actions in deciding not to escalate the complaint was not in accordance with its policy and was a departure and was a departure from guidance set out in the Code too.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord of the frustration at the time it was taking to schedule the work, and how she felt unable to use her lounge due to the ongoing issues. Despite this the landlord took no steps to escalate her complaint until it was contacted by us in February 2023. The resident should not have needed to go to these lengths to obtain a stage 2 response. It is acknowledged that the landlord took steps to inform the resident of a delay after agreeing to provide her a stage 2 response 17 March 2023. But it made no acknowledgement of the delay since July 2022 beyond saying that it should have told the resident it had de-escalated her complaint. Its eventual stage 2 response was nearly 10 months after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated. Far beyond the landlord’s target response time of 20 working days. During that period the landlord took insufficient steps to resolve the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s complaint handling at each stage was unreasonably delayed, and caused the resident frustration and upset.
The landlord said during its stage 2 response that it would share findings of its investigation with managers so that its repairs team and contractors ensured follow on work was raised and monitored to completion. This type of learning is encouraged. But, that the landlord then failed to monitor the work to the resident’s property is evidence this learning was not robustly taken forward. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord review processes and systems it has in place to monitor repairs through to conclusion.
While the landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,500 during its stage 1 response to recognise the avoidable delays in handling her repairs, its stage 2 response reduced the award it had made for this to £1,140. While it is acknowledged that the landlord increased its overall award of compensation at this point, it still should have provided a clear explanation of why it had done so. It would appear the amount awarded for avoidable delay was calculated from July 2019 in the stage 1 response, but from January 2021 in its stage 2 response. As noted earlier, our investigation covers the period since January 2021, so we are not able to comment on whether redress prior to this point was appropriate. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain its change in stance between its complaint handling responses to ensure the resident was clear about what it was compensating for.
The landlord identified during its stage 2 response that it had failed to direct the resident to its insurance to make a liability claim for damaged items. The landlord apologised that it had not done so earlier. While it is positive that this was belatedly recognised by the landlord, it is not clear why it failed to direct the resident to do so earlier. She had told the landlord a number of times since September 2021 of personal possessions that had been damaged by mould. The landlord advised her about submitting a claim to its insurer more than 18 months after this, and many months after she had disposed of items. We have included an order that the landlord review training and guidance to ensure staff are aware of when it is appropriate to direct residents to the landlord’s insurers. Given that the resident was not appropriately signposted at the time, we have also ordered that the landlord make contact with her about items damaged and consider offering compensation for these, taking into account the average market value of such items.
It is noted that since that landlord put in place a new complaint policy and guidance to staff in December 2023, following orders made by the Service on another case. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord review whether complaint handling failings identified during this investigation have been sufficiently addressed by it updated policy and guidance.
So far, the landlord has offered £75 to the resident in recognition of complaint handling delays. We consider this an insufficient amount to recognise the lengthy delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process. Nor does it sufficiently recognise the upset, frustration, time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failings we have identified. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an increased award had been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact of these failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of reports of drainage, flooding, damp and mould and floor issues.
2. complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The chief executive for the landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord should make a payment to the resident of £5,647, made up of:
  1. £4,297 for the impact of the landlord’s failing to address drainage, flooding, damp, mould and flooring issues over a period of more than 3 years, since January 2021.
  2. £600 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident due to the landlord’s failing to address drainage, flooding, damp, mould and flooring issues since January 2021.
  3. £750 for the upset, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its complaint handling since January 2021.
  4. deduct from the above any payment it has already made to the resident.
3. make contact with her about items damaged and consider offering compensation for these, taking into account the average market value of such items. Or, should the resident wish, re-offer to her assistance in claiming for items damaged through the landlord’s own insurance.
4. contact the resident to ensure it has appropriately recorded any vulnerabilities for her.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. make contact with the resident to arrange to undertake a full survey of her property, including the drainage and flooding issue, and provide her with a reasonable timeframe for completing all work identified.
2. provide the resident with a named contact at the landlord who will monitor work and update the resident through to completion.
3. review whether complaint handling failing identified during this investigation have been addressed by its updated policy and guidance.
4. review training and guidance to ensure staff are aware of when it is appropriate to direct residents to the landlord’s insurers.
5. review processes and systems it has in place to monitor repairs through to conclusion, and provide us with details of this review.
6. with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, review record keeping failing identified in this report with a view to taking appropriate steps to ensure these failings are not repeated.