London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206101

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 February 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 landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlords response to the residents concerns over the fire safety of her property.
3. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2006. The landlord has a medical vulnerability marker for the resident on its system and the resident provided information to evidence her physical disabilities. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor maisonette within a converted mid terrace property consisting of 2 flats over 3 storeys, the resident’s property is only accessed at street level. The communal service cupboard is located on the basement level within a small entrance lobby which provides access to the other flat also.
The resident is a joint tenant and at times, her husband would contact the landlord or the Ombudsman, therefore for clarity and ease they will both be referred to as “the resident” within this report.
Evidence was provided which showed reports of a neighbour dispute from as early as February 2021. While this investigation understands that the resident is dissatisfied with the landlords response to her reports of ASB over a number of years, formal complaints are normally expected to be made to a landlord within six months of when they occur. This investigation therefore mainly focuses on events from January 2022, around six months before the resident raised her complaint, to December 2022 when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring. While they provide important background, events that pre-date the complaints procedure are mainly referenced for background purposes.

Policies and procedures

The landlords fire safety policy states it will, where required, ensure that a person-centred risk assessment is undertaken for residents considered to be at greater risk from fire. The assessments will typically be carried out the following scenarios:
1. When a fire safety concern is raised about a resident by another staff member / external source
The fire safety policy also states that fire risk assessments can be released if requested by residents, leaseholders, solicitors (for conveyancing purposes) or other managing agents who are involved in the property.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 makes fire risk assessments a requirement for common areas of buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 extended this to the structure, external walls, windows and doors between domestic premises and common parts.
The landlords ASB policy differentiates between ‘high priority’ and ‘standard priority’ cases. It aims to respond to high priority cases within 1 working day and to standard cases within 3 working days.
In its ASB policy, the landlord says that it will complete a risk assessment “on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases)”. If the landlord decides it is unable to act following an ASB report it will signpost the reporting person to further advice and support. It also says it will agree an action plan with the reporting person and keep them updated throughout the case.
The tenancy and the landlords repair policy says it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation.
The landlords repairs and responsibilities booklet says emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger will be attended to within 24 hours to make the area safe, all other non-emergency repairs will be arranged at a mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be logged and a written response will be issued within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint. When more time is required, it will explain why and provide a further response in a new timeframe.

Summary of events

The landlords notes evidence an ASB case was opened on 3 February 2021, this case was regarding alleged harassment and verbal abuse from the neighbour below which was affecting the residents mental health. Notes on this case state the resident did not want further action taking due to potential repercussions and she wanted to move from her property. Between February 2021 and June 2021 no incidents of ASB were recorded, the notes on this case between these dates show the landlord supporting a move for the resident and passing information over to the lettings team. An ASB incident was recorded in June 2021 and notes at this time state the resident wanted the neighbour spoken to about the verbal abuse. Notes also show the police supported a move for the resident and between January 2022 and April 2022 the landlord and police attempted to organise a joint visit to both properties. Due to conflicting availability this was not organised however the landlord visited the resident in April 2022 and diary sheets were provided.
The resident submitted an online complaint form on 5 May 2022. The complaint was about dangerous electrics and lack of fire stopping between properties. She said she would have liked it confirming that there was adequate protection in case of fire as she only had 1 exit and if a fire was downstairs, she would be trapped.
The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint over the phone the next day, 6 May 2022 and raised a P1 for an electrician to attend.
On 6 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and detailed verbal abuse being shouted through the floor from her neighbour, she commented she was afraid of escalation. Within this email she stated she would like her complaint to be “formal”. The landlord responded on this day, said it would contact the police for information and speak to the neighbour and confirmed it was in the process of compiling the neighbourhood agreement.
The landlord recorded a “stage 1 decision” on 12 May 2022. Notes state it raised a P1 work order for an electrician to attend but the resident had to go out therefore there was no access and the job was carded.
The resident submitted a further online complaint form on 23 May 2022, in this she said she had made 2 complaints on the 5 May 2022 about safety issues and lack of action over her ASB complaints. She said she would like them both addressed as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2022 and 14 June 2022 and advised her complaints had been ignored. An internal note dated 14 June 2022 said this communication had been “added to the case” and left with someone to progress.
The landlord called the resident on 27 June 2022 to update her about her request for a home visit to discuss ongoing issues with her neighbour. It was noted a change in staffing meant it was unable to say when a visit could take place. The landlord also explained that it would not be possible to arrange a visit for after 5pm but could arrange a meeting via teams. The landlord asked the resident to allow time for a new housing manager to be allocated to the patch to arrange a date for the meeting.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 following contact from the resident, the landlord was asked to register the resident’s complaint and provide a response. The landlord called the resident this day to discuss her complaint.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment of her complaint on 4 July 2022 and said a response would be provided by 14 July 2022.
On 21 July 2022, the landlords system notes said that the communal door lock was required to be changed and keys would be provided to each tenant.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord for a second time on 3 August 2022 as the resident had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord was asked to provide a response by 10 August 2022.
On 3 August 2022, the landlords system notes said the resident called to rebook the appointment to complete works to the electrical cupboard, it was stated the resident had issues with the neighbour as they had changed the communal door lock and would not allow access to complete the work.
The landlord logged a further ASB case on 4 August 2022 for the “misuse of public space” following the neighbour changing the lock to the communal door. An internal landlord note dated the same day, said the resident had mentioned the issue with the neighbour had been “going on for some time”. A ring doorbell covered the shared communal area, she was using diary sheets and the noise app. The resident had also mentioned she “does not feel safe walking out of her home in case he is there”.
An internal note from the landlords system dated 4 August 2022 said the property would not require a fire risk assessment as it would only be required if it had a communal entrance area that 1 or more residents used. It was then confirmed that it would require an assessment due to the small communal area at basement level.
The landlord called the resident on 9 August 2022 and advised that if both parties were in agreement, it would create an acceptable behaviour contract to address the issues. Notes from this call also state that the landlords fire risk assessment team would be in touch to complete a risk assessment and any required actions would be taken forward and addressed.
The landlord called the resident on 12 August 2022 and advised it had emailed the neighbour about the ring doorbell and it had no response about the acceptable behaviour contract. It advised it would send an email to state the doorbell needed to be moved within 7 days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 August 2022. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Said following a meeting it would now contact the neighbour about signing an acceptable behaviour contract.
2. Said the residents property was now added to the fire risk assessment teams program and an assessment was arranged for 15 August 2022.
3. The fire risk assessment team would liaise with the passive fire safety team, to install Grade F Fire detection alarms to the property.
4. Apologised that the resident felt the need to complain for her concerns to be addressed.
A fire risk assessment dated 15 August 2022 noted the property as a medium risk, due to the fact there was no “interlinked detection between the flats supporting a full evacuation strategy”. The assessor noted the resident raised concerns regarding the compartmentation within the building and her disabilities which would delay her evacuating the building in an emergency. The assessor confirmed to the resident that due to the age and the conversion date he was unable to confirm if the compartmentation between the flats would support a stay put strategy. With that in mind the assessor would request interlinked detection to support a full evacuation strategy. The assessor also recommended a person centred risk assessment for the resident to be completed to confirm if she was suitably housed. It also noted that the resident confirmed there was a fire in the property prior to her moving into the flat.
The resident stated to the Ombudsman that she requested her complaint be escalated at the end of September 2022. The landlord later copied this to a future note on its system. The escalation request included:
1. The resident did not feel the complaints had been addressed.
2. Her complaint regarding the failure to address the ASB complaint had not been resolved, she still had not had any confirmation that any of the complaints had been addressed and if so, what action had been taken.
3. She was told by the landlord that the neighbour was told to remove the ring doorbell as it was in a communal area but over a month later the doorbell was still in place.
4. The fire rating between flats was not checked and the only recommendation from the fire risk assessment was to install a linked fire/smoke alarm between the flats.
5. The resident advised of concerns that a linked system would rely heavily on the neighbour not turning off/removing detectors and therefore she did not see this as a reliable solution for early detection.
6. A copy of the fire risk assessment had not been provided.
7. The neighbour below continued to smoke drugs under the windows, and the resident said this was classed as ASB under the landlords policy.
The landlord called the resident on 26 October 2022, the landlords notes from this call state the resident advised she was unsatisfied with the way the ASB had been handled and the lack of contact from the landlord about the ASB and the fire risk assessment. The landlord advised the neighbour had declined to sign the acceptable behaviour contract and no further reports of ASB had been received. The resident was advised to keep diary sheets to record the ASB and continue to contact the police if required as it could not evict or take enforcement action without evidence.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 1 November 2022 and requested the doorbell be removed within 14 days.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord for a third time on 8 November 2022 as the resident had advised she requested to escalate her complaint at the end of September 2022 but had not had a response. The landlord was asked to respond within the next 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate her complaint on 9 November 2022 and advised a response would be provided by 22 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022. The landlord explained in this response that the delay in issuing its stage 1 response was due to a member of staff leaving the company and apologised for this. It continued to advise:
1. A decision about the fire risk assessment report and when the resident would be provided with the report had not been made, but the landlord would communicate this information to the resident once it became available.
2. No reports of ASB had been recorded since August.
3. It was unable to comment if the ring doorbell had been removed as the member of staff had not provided this information at the time of the complaint response.
4. It operated a zero tolerance policy to the possession of illegal drugs.
5. It does not have the authority to search a property or confiscate substances from residents.
6. It had no evidence to support the allegations the resident had made or to take tenancy enforcement action and it could only continue to encourage the resident to report drug use to the police.
7. An ASB case was opened on 4 August 2022 and remained open.
8. An ASB opened on 3 February 2021 had confirmation from the police that there was “not enough evidence for a crime of harassment”.
9. It was unable to ascertain what went wrong in the delay of the stage 1 response and apologised.
10. It offered £50 for the delayed stage 1 response, £50 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
The resident responded to the landlord on 29 November 2022. In this email the resident said she still did not feel her complaint had been addressed because:
1. She had asked for the fire rating to be assessed between the 2 properties as she was concerned, she did not have a safe exit if a fire occurred in the downstairs flat.
2. She had waited for 3 months for the fire risk assessment report to be made available, a further wait was not acceptable.
3. She had not received any confirmation that there was any follow up about the complaints made about the neighbour.
4. She was told in August the neighbour had 7 days to remove the ring doorbell, the doorbell was still in place and the resident felt “fobbed off”.
The landlord responded on the same day and reiterated it had asked someone to contact the resident to discuss what was happening with the ring doorbell and the issues with the neighbour. At the time of the complaint response this information was still outstanding. It had also asked for a copy of the fire risk assessment report to be sent to the resident. It apologised for the communication not being clear when there was staff changes covering the area.
Internal notes dated November 2022 from the landlord show the communications between the relevant departments as noted in its stage 2 response. The fire risk assessment team responded to a complaints coordinator to advise the report was usually redacted before being shared with residents, a different team was responsible for sharing the report and people were assigned to progress and monitor the actions.

Events after the internal complaints process.

The landlords internal system notes show a record on 22 December 2022, where a visit took place to inspect the property and a call was made to inform the resident the ring doorbell had been taken down. On this call the resident advised there was still “issues with swearing” and she was willing to mediate. The landlord also scheduled a “subjective noise test”.
Further notes advise a warning letter was sent the neighbour on 22 January 2023 and the case would be closed. A copy of the fire risk assessment was also shared with the resident.
An internal note dated 20 June 2023 confirmed a person centred fire risk assessment was completed and the property deemed unsuitable due to the residents disabilities and the case was referred to lettings “but this may go on for years”. Further notes between officers suggest the landlord had concerns over the interim period. An internal email dated 22 June 2023 said a fire risk assessment “is only performed on a common space”. As the property was a street conversion it did consider the compartmentation of the flats as part of the fire risk assessment, therefore the report raised interlinked detection. Within this email the officer said it was something that “could be escalated” and other than addressing the original actions was not sure what further advice to give.

Assessment and findings

Evidence has been seen that shows the resident has said she considers that the ASB she has experienced has impacted her mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the ASB and the resident’s mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a residents expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy echoes this approach and notes it will create an action plan for its investigation with the reporting person.
In this case, there is little evidence of incidents of ASB being reported or recorded. No evidence has been seen of an action plan being completed with the resident, which could be due to the resident initially saying she did not want any action taken previously and the case opened within the time frame of investigation was due to a “misuse of communal space”. In this case the landlord spoke to the neighbour and communicated via the phone to the resident that the communal lock would be changed which was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. What is not clear is why this case remained open on the landlords system after the lock had been changed. This would have led to confusion for both parties as to what issue remained unresolved with the neighbour.
The resident made a complaint about the lack of action following her reports of ASB, which it would be reasonable to conclude was historical due to the limited incidents reported to the landlord within the timeframe of this investigation. Although evidence was provided to show the landlord was trying to arrange a joint visit with the police between January 2022 and April 2022 it was not clear what the intended purpose of this joint visit was. When the landlord visited in April 2022, it provided dairy sheets to the resident which, evidence has not been seen to show these were completed and returned. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the acceptable behaviour contract was an action from historical incidents. When the neighbour declined to sign the agreement and sporadic further incidents were reported it was reasonable for the landlord to not take further action without the appropriate level of evidence.
The landlord reiterated this to the resident in October 2022, which is a noticeable gap in the landlords communications and due to a staff change. Furthermore when the resident requested a visit to discuss the issues she was experiencing with the neighbour, limited information was given and she was told to wait for a new member of staff. This would have added to the distress the resident was feeling and was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord in this instance to ensure requests like this were covered in any staff change or absence.
A further issue included in the ASB reported was the neighbour installing a video doorbell on a communal entrance. Matters pertaining to data protection and GDPR fall within the remit of the ICO. Whether the resident or her neighbour are legally entitled to have a video doorbell filming parts of the communal area is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues. What the Ombudsman has investigated is how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about video doorbell.
The landlord provided evidence that it requested numerous times that the doorbell be removed once it became aware that neighbour had installed it on a communal entrance. Evidence was not seen of any follow up actions following these requests other that a visit in December 2022 which confirmed it had been removed. Overall this was a period of 6 months which was not appropriate and added to the residents frustration with the landlord.
Overall the landlord failed with its timeliness of communication to the resident about her reports of ASB and therefore failed to manage her expectations. A staffing change should not equate to a poor service provided and an order has been made in respect of this. Evidence was provided to show the neighbour was visited in January 2023 and given a warning. It is not clear from the records how often the resident was experiencing ASB and therefore the Ombudsman is unable to conclude if the landlords actions were proportionate in this case. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports and communicate this clearly back to the resident, therefore, a finding of service failure has been made in respect of the landlord’s ASB handling.

The landlords response to the residents concerns over the fire safety of her property.

It is not in the Ombudsman jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive determinations about building safety and if a landlord has been negligent of this. The main consideration in this case is whether the landlord acted reasonably after the resident raised safety concerns.
The landlord provided evidence that showed it acted on the residents concerns about the fire safety, evidence has been seen of internal communications raising her concerns from August 2022. Unfortunately what was evident in these communications was a lack of collaboration between departments and a lack of knowledge of correct process. A landlord is expected to work cohesively between departments to provide a good level of service to its customers, some of the internal correspondence seen was not appropriate or cooperative.
A fire risk assessment was carried out in August 2022, approximately 3 months after the resident raised concerns about her safety in case of a fire. Although the landlord fulfilled its obligations in completing an assessment, it is not clear what the delay in arranging this assessment was however the length of time, taking into account the residents disability, was not appropriate.
Furthermore an action on the completed fire risk assessment was to conduct a person centred fire risk assessment due to the residents disability and concerns about being able to get out in case of a fire. No evidence was seen to show this was acted upon following the assessment in August 2022. The landlords policy says it will undertake a person centred fire risk assessment when a fire safety concern is raised by a member of staff but in this case, it failed to do so until sometime after. It is not clear when this person centred fire risk assessment was completed, but a note dated in June 2023 confirmed it was and the property deemed unsuitable. Therefore the landlord was not able to demonstrate that it followed its procedure in a timely manner, took proportionate action and took the residents vulnerabilities into account. This is a concern as additional actions were raised as part of this fire risk assessment, which the landlord has not demonstrated was also acted upon within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore an order has been made to confirm the actions were acted upon.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlords actions as she had raised concerns about the fire rating of the building which the landlord did not acknowledge in its correspondence with her which would have added to her distress and frustration.
Overall the unexplained delays in completing the assessment and subsequent actions in addition to the lack of awareness in the process evidenced by the landlord internally equates to service failure.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

The resident completed an online complaint form in May 2022 about the electrics and fire safety. The landlord responded by raising an emergency repair which was in line with its repair policy but it failed to acknowledge the residents concern about fire safety at this time. She then stated in a separate email that she wanted her complaint about how her ASB reports had been handled to be “formal”, which also went unacknowledged. The resident went onto chase the landlord about her “complaints” on a further 2 separate occasions. It was not appropriate for the residents comments to go unacknowledged, a resident is not expected to have to use the word formal complaint for the landlord to start its complaint procedure, even so, in this case when she did use this language the landlord failed to act appropriately and log a complaint.
Furthermore it took the involvement of the Ombudsman for a complaint to be logged which is not appropriate. Despite the landlord acknowledging the complaint and advising it would provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1, it failed to do so and the Ombudsman had to request its response for a second time. It took 3 months for the resident to be provided with a stage 1 complaint response, which is an unacceptable amount of time and no doubt would have caused avoidable frustration for the resident. This was 6 weeks after the Ombudsman originally asked it to provide a response which is unreasonable and far outside the 10 working day timeframe stated in its complaints policy.
According to the resident she requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 in September 2022, this was not disputed by the landlord, but no evidence has been seen to show the landlord acknowledged this escalation request without involvement from the Ombudsman. Following a further request from the Ombudsman on 8 November 2022, the landlord recorded the escalated complaint on 9 November 2022 and provided its stage two complaint response on 22 November 2022 which was 10 working days since it raised the stage 2 complaint.
The complaint handling code, which was in place at the time of the residents complaint, says effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints, where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out its actions it has already taken or intends to take to put thing right. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The landlord offered an apology in its stage 2 response for the delay at stage 1 and advised this was due a member of staff leaving but it then later stated it could not advise why the delay occurred and apologised. This is contradicting information within its response which suggests the landlord failed to investigate fully what had gone wrong and then failed to learn from this and ensure it did not happen again.
In addition to the above, the landlord responded at stage 2 without having all the information to respond to the residents complaints, rather than issue a holding letter to advise it required more time, which would have been more appropriate in this circumstance. Its stage 2 letter still had issues that it could not comment on or provide the resident with an estimated timeframe of when these issues could be resolved. This showed that the landlord was more focussed on issuing the response rather than resolving the residents complaint which is not appropriate and goes against the dispute resolution principles. It is a concern that the reason for issuing the stage 2 response without full information seems to be that internal departments were not operating in a collaborative manner which was also evident in its internal communications about the residents fire safety concerns and historical rehousing request. It is for this reason that a finding of maladministration has been found and the landlord is ordered below to review this case and identify learning outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents concerns over the fire safety of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed with its timeliness of communication to the resident about her reports of ASB and therefore failed to manage her expectations. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports and communicate this clearly back to the resident, therefore, a finding of service failure has been made in respect of the landlords ASB handling.
There was unexplained delays in completing the fire risk assessment and subsequent actions in addition to the lack of awareness in the process evidenced by the landlord internally equates to service failure.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the residents complaint at both stages without involvement from this service. It also failed to adequately investigate and identify what had gone wrong, therefore missed an opportunity to put things right and learn from the outcome of its investigations. It also provided a stage 2 response without the full information to resolve the residents complaint showing it was more focussed on responding on time rather than resolving the residents complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to.
1. Send a written apology to the resident for its failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 for its failure to appropriately respond to her complaint.
3. Pay the resident £100 for the delay in providing the fire risk assessment.
4. Confirm to the Ombudsman that all actions recommended within the fire risk assessment were acted upon.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan including timescales that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its operational processes highlighted in this report with particular focus on effective collaboration between its internal departments.
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its fire safety process and ensure its staff are fully aware of current law and specific roles and responsibilities included in this. This should include outcome actions following completed fire risk assessments.
3. Its intention and a timescale to review its operational complaint management and ensure its staff are fully aware of the landlord’s complaint policy and procedures and adequate oversight measures are in place to ensure adherence to these in cases such as this.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has compiled with the above orders within the timescales specified above.