London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204170

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a one bedroom flat on the first floor of a block containing 126 other units. The landlord’s vulnerability records show that the resident suffers from a mental health condition.
The resident has reported leaks in the property since 2018. A previous case was determined by the Ombudsman on 30 October 2020 under references 201813342 and 201914263. A finding of reasonable redress was found in respect of how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks in the property during 2018 and 2019.
The source of the leak relates to the heat inference unit (HIU) in the building, affecting a number of properties. The landlord’s records show that the leak occurred intermittently, but got worse in November 2021. The resident reported that the leaks caused damp and mould in the cupboard housing the HIU, and she had a moth infestation as a result. The resident told the landlord that the electricity was “constantly tripping” because of the leak, which happened every year. She felt that the landlord had no sense of urgency and asked why there had been a delay in appointing a surveyor.
Records show that the landlord needed to temporarily decant the resident in order to conduct leak tracing. She stayed with family between 1 December 2021 and 16 February 2022. She was then provided a self-contained decant property, also owned by the landlord. She remains in this property to this day.
A housing disrepair survey and environmental health inspection were completed in January 2022. On 10 January 2022 the resident requested that the landlord put in writing what actions it was planning to take and reported that she felt “gaslighted”. She said she believed the landlord had never taken steps to resolve the problem.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2022. It apologised for the disruption and explained that the works had been so extensive that it had resulted in a full building refurbishment. A post inspection by independent surveyors was due to take place and its senior management team (SMT) would be reviewing what lessons could be learnt. It offered no compensation as it said the resident had started a legal disrepair claim.
The same day, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and explained she no longer had legal representation. On 3 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in responding to her complaint and said it had updated its repair systems to make it easier to track repairs affecting the block. It offered her £330 for its complaint handling failures and £50 reimbursement of her purchase of “moth bombs”. It explained that once a post inspection had taken place, additional compensation would be considered as part of her claim for disrepair.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord issued an “updated complaint review”. It acknowledged that the remedial works had overrun and apologised for its communication failures. It offered the resident £10,860 to take into account the delays, distress and inconvenience it had caused. It explained it had made specific changes to its processes following the lessons learnt in her case.
In bringing her case to the Ombudsman, the resident said the offer of compensation was not reflective of her experience over the last 6 years. She did not feel confident that the landlord had competently repaired the issue for all residents who had experienced the same issue in the block. She said she remained confused as to what works remained outstanding and whether there was a plan for her to return to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain that there are specific reasons why the Ombudsman will not consider certain aspects of the resident’s complaint. In this case, the resident is seeking recognition of the landlord’s failure to address the leak from when she first reported the issue in 2018. This investigation is unable to predate the previous Ombudsman determination of 30 October 2020. This is because, in accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters already decided upon. This investigation therefore will focus on the events from November 2021 onwards, to which the complaint the resident brought to the Ombudsman relates.
It is understood that given the nature of the repair, the landlord’s handling of the leaks and subsequent remedial works have affected a number of residents living in the same block. The resident has provided evidence to this Service to demonstrate this is the case, which is not disputed by the landlord. However each complaint should be investigated in its own merit, taking into account that each individual can be impacted in different ways. This investigation will focus on the resident’s own experience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

It is not disputed that there have been intermittent leaks in the property over a substantial period of time. Evidence provided by the landlord includes a consumer regulation investigation by the Regulator of Social Housing. The report confirms that since the landlord acquired the property in 2010, nearly every unit (127) in the block has reported at least one leak. It is accepted that the landlord had no relationship with the developer and was not involved in the building design or configuration of the HIU in each flat, which made the repairs more problematic. It should also be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and often different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved.
In this case, records show that between 10 November and 30 December 2021 there were at least 4 reports of a leak in the resident’s property alone, affecting the electrics. The landlord repeatedly raised urgent repairs jobs to “make safe” following the leak, which was appropriate, however it did not seek to investigate the matter further. There is no evidence that it appointed a qualified specialist at the earliest opportunity and instead dealt with the repairs reactively. This was unreasonable, particularly given the overall history of recurrent leaks in the block over a number of years.
As well as reporting concerns about the electrics, the resident also advised she was concerned about the resulting damp and mould. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential health hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s recommendations contained within the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, there is no evidence that the landlord adopted a risk based approach or that it sought to identify the root cause within a timely manner.
The range of the leaks across the block was extensive, as is noted in a caretaker report dated 12 January 2022 which said there was water leaking “from the fourth floor all the way to the ground floor”. The landlord raised a “priority 1” repair which was appropriate given the extent of the leak. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. In this instance, the repair was closed on its systems the same day, without any commentary as to what had resolved the issue. Its failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repair processes were not operating effectively.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord was issued with an improvement notice by the local authority which highlighted that there was a HHSRS Category 2 risk in the resident’s flat. Two hazards were identified: damp and mould from the water leaks, and electric shock hazard from the electrics in the cupboard housing the HIU. The landlord was ordered to start works within 28 days, and complete them within a further 28 days. It was not until this notice was served that the landlord was prompted into more affirmative action. It had been the resident who had contacted the EHO out of frustration at the lack of action from the landlord. It should not have taken the resident approaching EHO for the landlord to have visited the property, to have established the risks posed and to have formulated a plan of action.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her concerns that the leak was coming from the main soil vent pipe (SVP) containing contaminated water. It is understood that this possibility would cause the resident considerable worry and distress. Reference to the SVP was first noted on the housing disrepair survey conducted on 14 January 2022 as part of the resident’s initial disrepair claim. Notes from the survey stated that the cupboard was “assumed” to have a SVP and it was therefore imperative that the landlord investigate whether she had been exposed to contaminated water.
The landlord’s communication on the matter of the SVP has been contradictory and unclear. For example, it would regularly make reference to the resident’s property being affected by a “leak from the soil pipe”. It also made reference to a soil stack leaking into properties at a multi-departmental meeting on 27 April 2022. Records show the landlord later did take steps to investigate whether the soil pipe contained contaminated water. Its investigations were overseen by the EHO and the surveyor, who both concluded in writing that the water affecting her property was from a pipe linked to the HIU in the flat above, and there were no concerns about contaminated water. However it was not until the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2022 that it clarified this point. The delay caused her evident frustration and distress.
It is accepted that due to the type and potential duration of the investigative works, the landlord required the resident to decant from her property. The works were extensive and affected a number of properties which needed to be empty simultaneously to investigate and remedy the issue, which was reasonable. The landlord’s correspondence was clear when it explained the need for a longer term accommodation solution given the likely duration of the pending remedial works, and that staying with family on a short term basis would no longer be suitable.
However in its correspondence dated 12 January 2022, the landlord was unsympathetic to the disruption the leak had caused the resident, stating that her deliberation about moving out was “now holding up repairs”. The landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge that the prospect of being moved again, having been decanted in the past for the same issue caused the resident considerable frustration, worry and upset. The landlord failed to reassure the resident of its schedule of works, providing her with no end date. The prospect of an open-ended decant caused the resident evident distress.
Following the improvement notice served by the EHO, the landlord was ordered to take prompt steps to resolve and remedy the leak within a specified timeframe. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. Records show that the landlord was in regular contact with the EHO from March 2022 to update it that it required an extension to the original 28 days set. This was to cover the extended scope of works which had been found as a result of its investigations into the HIU, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman understands that the extension beyond the 28 days originally set by the EHO caused the resident considerable disappointment and upset. Evidence demonstrates that the landlord informed the resident of its intention to extend the timeframe on 29 March 2022 and explained its reasons why, which was a reasonable attempt to manage her expectations.
It is noted that around the same time, the resident contacted several members of the landlord’s staff on most days asking for an update. Given the complex nature of the works required, that several residents were affected and there was an increase in resulting complaints, it was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a multi-departmental meeting to discuss a plan of action for the block. However following the meeting, there continued to be confusion as to who would provide updates to the resident. As a result, there was a lack of ownership and the resident was not provided with a single point of contact.
It is acknowledged that the resident sought legal advice and started a disrepair claim against the landlord. The Ombudsman’s guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions encourages landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure there is an effective operation of communication channels between its own teams and the resident, throughout the repairs and complaints process. In this case, the landlord’s internal correspondence on 4 May 2022 noted that the situation was “becoming a complete mess”, with updates being “logged all over the place”. Without providing the resident with a single point of contact, the landlord’s system updates became muddled and hindered the landlord’s ability to effectively manage her case.
From evidence seen, there was an over reliance on email communication between the landlord’s internal teams which caused confusion as to who was dealing with the outstanding repairs. This is evidenced in an email from the landlord’s senior legal disrepair surveyor on 4 May 2022 which stated “can everything be placed in one email chain so we know what has been answered and what hasn’t”. This evident confusion and lack of ownership of the issue contributed to delays and inconvenience for the resident.
In correspondence on the same day, the landlord commented that “as [the resident] has legal representation, she must be reminded to seek updates via the lawyer she has commissioned”. Whilst it was the resident’s prerogative to pursue a disrepair claim, the landlord still had a responsibility to communicate regularly with the resident where the matter had not been referred to court. The landlord’s records show gaps in communication with the resident around June and July 2022. Its failure to maintain regular contact with the resident was unreasonable and caused her time and trouble in chasing a response.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman a screen shot extract of written correspondence she received her legal representative on 28 July 2022. The content of the correspondence suggests that compensation had been agreed until the end of July 2022, and a further rate of 15% proportion of the rent would be granted thereafter if the repairs were not completed by this date. The resident has not provided the Ombudsman with the full context of this particular correspondence, neither has the landlord provided any evidence of its communication with her representative. The Ombudsman cannot therefore reasonably establish what was agreed between both parties around this time.
However, it is not disputed that repairs remained outstanding past the end of July 2022. On 2 August 2022, the landlord raised a works order to strip out the damaged plasterboard, refit a new kitchen and bathroom suite and completely redecorate the flat. These works were identified around April 2022 as being required after the landlord had completed works to the HIU unit and pipework. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated its overall schedule of works with the resident until 30 August 2022. The additional delay in communicating what remained outstanding caused unnecessary confusion and distress to the resident.
Following this contact, the landlord suggested to the resident that it was “carrying out a lot more work” inside the property than it had previously communicated and the estimated completion date would be 25 October 2022. Records show that on 1 September 2022 the resident said if the landlord could commit to this date, with quality assurance in place, she would be happy to agree to settle her complaint. However there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident and the Ombudsman had to intervene, asking it to respond formally to her as a complaint.
The additional works were not completed by the end of October 2022 as anticipated, and there is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the reason for the delay. Had it done so, it could have also established that the resident no longer had legal representation. As a result, it missed a further opportunity to resolve her concerns with a final schedule of works and an offer of appropriate compensation within the stage 1 response it issued on 30 November 2022. It was unreasonable that the landlord had concluded that the repairs were “nearly completed”, with no reassurance of how it intended to take ownership of her concerns through to conclusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 response which followed on 3 January 2023 acknowledged that its communication had been poor. However it did little to assure the resident how the matter would be brought to conclusion, or when the remedial works would be completed. Despite being aware that the resident no longer had legal representation, it referred the resident back to her disrepair claim and said it would not consider offering compensation until the works were completed. This was unreasonable and demonstrated that the landlord still did not have a clear understanding of what stage her claim was at or what remedial works were outstanding.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to respond to her concerns about a moth infestation. The Ombudsman is unable to establish a causal link between the appearance of moths and the reported damp and mould, but can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports. In this case, the landlord appropriately addressed the moths within its stage 1 response. The resident was offered £50 reimbursement for her use of “moth bombs” which the Ombudsman considers sufficient to put this particular matter right.
However it is clear that the lack of conclusion to the substantive repair issues within the landlord’s stage 2 response caused the resident significant distress, where she reported an increase in her anxiety. The landlord responded promptly to these concerns and raised a safeguarding referral due to further comments the resident made about her decline in mental health, which was appropriate.
One day after the landlord’s final response, on 4 January 2023, the landlord notified the resident that all the repairs were complete, and she was invited to raise any further concerns during a joint post-inspection with an independent surveyor. It is unclear why this was not communicated within the landlord’s stage 2 response it had issued the day before, further demonstrating poor record keeping and confusing communication.
Records show that the joint inspection was significantly delayed for a number of reasons. The landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange the appointment with the resident, contacting her on approximately 5 occasions throughout February 2023 without success. However further delays occurred where the landlord appeared confused about which member of staff needed to attend the inspection. On 22 March 2023 it arranged the inspection without discussing it with the correct building surveyor. This caused further unnecessary delays and confusion for the resident and several members of its own staff.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord completed a post inspection of the works, using an independent building inspector. It was reasonable for the landlord to have instructed an independent party to post inspect the works, rather than one of its own surveyors. However there is no record that the resident was informed of the appointment, which left her feeling as though she had been intentionally excluded from the visit. Although there is no evidence to suggest this was the case, it was understandable why the resident would feel like this. By inspecting the property in her absence, it failed on assurances it had given the resident within its final complaint response that she would have the opportunity to meet with the surveyor in person to ask any outstanding questions.
Whilst the Ombudsman does not encourage multiple stage 2 complaint responses, it was appropriate for the landlord to have revisited the resident’s concerns and reflected on the amount of compensation it could offer her once it had received the post-inspection documentation. However, it did not write to her again until 26 May 2023, resulting in further avoidable delays.
It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the situation has exacerbated her medical conditions, in particular an eye condition, mental health and insomnia. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the leak and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
In the landlord’s “complaint review”, it acknowledged that its service had fallen short of expectations and made an offer of £10,280 in compensation, specifically for its handling of the leak. It also detailed considerable learning from the resident’s case. The Ombudsman considers that its offer would have been sufficient to put matters right, had it concluded matters at that point and been in a position to arrange for the resident to return to the property. However, 9 months later there remains considerable confusion as to whether there are any outstanding works at the property or if the resident is able to return.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is unaware of the landlord’s position with regards to repairs, and remains decanted. Concerningly, the landlord has been unable to confirm this crucial point to the Ombudsman. In two separate responses it provided to the Ombudsman on 6 February 2024 it provided conflicting updates. For example, it advised the Ombudsman that “all works are completed and the resident would be expected to move back, I have advised her of this”. On the same day, a different member of staff later said “ I hadn’t actually advised [the resident] that her property is ready as there were a few last minute snagging bits. Just chased this up now”. This demonstrates that the landlord continues to have issues with its internal record keeping and communication.
Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak which amount to severe maladministration. Despite acknowledging that it needed to take learning from her complaint on several occasions, it has continued to make the same mistakes. It’s internal communication continues to give conflicting information and has hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to understand why the resident has been unable to return to the property. The landlord’s handling of this case has had a detrimental impact on the resident where she has remained decanted from the property for approximately 2 years. Where the issue remains outstanding, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it had put things right and learnt from outcomes.
It may help to explain that the Ombudsman’s own awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
In this case, the Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also orders a separate amount reflective of the additional delays the resident has experienced since the landlord’s “complaint review” on 26 May 2023 to date, where she has been unable to return to and enjoy her property. The amount for the additional delays has been calculated as follows:
1. 25% of the rental figure of £970 (£242.50) between 26 May 2023 to date.
2. The amount totals 9 months. The total figure is £2,182.50.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Two weeks before the resident’s complaint to the landlord, the Ombudsman had issued new guidance on disrepair claims. It explained that the Ombudsman’s view was that the matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings had been issued with the court. It clarified that landlords should continue to promote and encourage alternative dispute resolution avenues, such as the landlord’s complaint process, where there are allegations of disrepair. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this guidance and it did not progress the complaint that the resident made on 16 November 2021 in accordance with its policy.
The resident continued to express that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the leak throughout 2022, but the landlord failed to take ownership of her concerns as a complaint, informing her that “we cannot cover cases where disrepair claims have been made”. She was repeatedly referred back to the disrepair team, with no single point of contact. She made it clear to the landlord on 22 April and 3 May 2022 that she felt “forced to email every day” and wanted a reference number to progress her complaint. The landlord’s failure to raise a complaint caused the resident evident frustration and distress.
The Ombudsman had to intervene on 8 September and 24 November 2022, asking the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. A stage 1 response followed on 30 November 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to contact the resident directly to gain an understanding of all that she was dissatisfied with before writing to her. It made no apology to the resident for the delay in issuing her with a stage 1 response, and failed to acknowledge that it could have done more to address her concerns whilst her disrepair claim was ongoing.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated the same day. A stage 2 response was sent two days later than could be expected in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy. This was a minor delay and the landlord made an appropriate apology for this. Within the response, the landlord referenced having spoken to several members of staff in order to investigate her complaint and had reviewed its case notes. However, it did not seek to contact the resident to discuss her concerns prior to issuing its response. This did not demonstrate that the landlord had applied the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of ‘be fair’.
The landlord continued to reiterate that it’s complaints team could not cover cases where disrepair claims had been made, contrary to the Ombudsman’s guidance. It acknowledged that there had been complaint handling failures which had caused the resident time, trouble, and caused delays. It made a compensatory payment of £330 which was a reasonable offer in accordance with its compensation policy. It did not however demonstrate that it had taken any learning with regards to its complaint handling.
The stage 2 response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. It should not have taken further complaint responses from the landlord to resolve the situation for the resident. The “complaint review” undertaken in May 2023 cannot be considered as reasonable redress as it took place 5 months after the landlord had completed its complaint procedure. However it is recognised its purpose was for the landlord to have reconsidered its service failures with hindsight. It is only once it had done this, that it recognised that it needed to follow the Ombudsman’s guidance of November 2021 and update its internal processes.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a considerable amount of correspondence as its evidence for this case. Whilst much of what it has provided has been pertinent, it has also provided a substantial amount of information that is irrelevant and has caused confusion. For example, it has provided 6 different versions of its complaint policies and 7 compensation policies. It has also provided a copy of its pets policy which has no significance to this case. An order has been made for the landlord to review its information sharing practices with the Ombudsman, to ensure that future shared information is relevant and accurate to each case.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It missed an opportunity to learn from the Ombudsman’s guidance on disrepair claims at an earlier stage in the complaint process. It was not until after it had issued its final response, that the landlord recognised in hindsight it should have taken steps to update its processes earlier. The landlord’s failure to do so impacted its communication with the resident, causing her avoidable frustration and distress over a prolonged period of time.
In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report which identified that the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory complaints handling service to its residents. Recommendations were made to carry out a review of its complaint policy and retrain its staff. The landlord has since completed the training roll out, with yearly refresher training scheduled. The landlord’s most recent complaint policy of August 2023 has also been updated to reflect that it will recognise cases which have not yet reached the ‘legal’ stage of disrepair. Therefore, this report has not made an order for the landlord to take this action, as it has already put into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in person, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding issues the resident is facing, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is to confirm with the resident if the property is in an appropriate condition for the resident to move back in, following the decant, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £14,142.50 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The amount is comprised of:
1. £10,860 it offered within its “complaint review” dated 26 May 2023 if not already paid
2. £2,182.50 for the additional delays in completing “snagging works” at the property. The breakdown of this figure is explained in paragraph 44 of this investigation report
3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of remedial works
4. An additional £100 for the time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing her complaint to the landlord.
The landlord is ordered to confirm what snagging works remain outstanding, and the date the resident is able to return to the property, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to identify all other residents who have experienced leaks, damp and mould relating to issues with the HIU within the block. This should include residents who may not be engaged in the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord is to update the Ombudsman with evidence that it has taken steps to put right any detriment caused to other residents identified as being affected, within 6 weeks.
The landlord carry out a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices within 6 weeks. The review must include but is not limited to:
1. An explanation of how will identify and respond to repeat repairs
2. Review of its procedures for record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
3. A review of its information sharing across departments, including how it will ensure that its complaints team have full access to its repairs information
4. A review of its information sharing with the Ombudsman, with confirmation of how it will ensure that only information relevant to the complaint are shared in future evidence requests.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedure against the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which will become a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a final response to the complaint the resident has advised is outstanding for issues relating to heating in her decant property.