Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323555)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323555

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    2. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
    3. handling of the resident’s reports of no electricity, heating, and hot water to the property.
    4. handling of multiple repair issues due to the leak, including repairs to:
      1. the area around the source of the leak.
      2. the kitchen and bathroom ceilings.
      3. the kitchen units and flooring.
    5. communication with the resident and its record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a block. The landlord is a housing association. The property was let under a 6 year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy agreement in February 2018. The resident shares the property with her husband and 2 children.
  2. The resident reported a leak affecting her kitchen on 19 June 2023. She contacted the landlord again on 22 June 2023 to report that she had no power to the kitchen. This was affecting all sockets, lights, and the boiler. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised 3 separate repair orders between 19 and 23 June 2023. These were for both a plumber and an electrician to attend. Its electrician provided feedback that they could not undertake any works until the leak was fixed as water was affecting the electrics. The landlord raised an order to ‘make safe the ceilings in the kitchen and bathroom of the resident’s home. Ahead of these works it carried out an asbestos survey on 4 July 2023.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 4 July 2023 it traced the leak to a flat above the resident’s home. It carried out a forced entry to the flat on 23 July 2023 and completed a temporary repair. It noted that further works were needed, including extensive works to the kitchen of that flat. On 27 July 2023 the landlord raised an order for an electrician to attend the resident’s property. It was to reinstate her electrics as the leak had stopped and dried out.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2023 in which she said:
    1. On 19 June 2023 she woke up to find a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling. She called the landlord to report the leak. She called again on 20 June 2023 as the leak was continuing. A plumber attended and said that there was an issue with the roof. They said that they would report back to the landlord and attend again the following day. She called again when no one attended. The landlord initially transferred her to its contractor. She then spoke with the landlord’s contact centre with no effective resolution.
    2. The fuse box in the property ‘tripped due to the leak, leaving her without electricity. The electrician told her not to use the electric until the leak was repaired. Over a month later the leak was ongoing, and she had no hot water or electricity in the kitchen or living room. She told the landlord that she had 2 small children.
    3. It had taken 3 weeks for a surveyor to attend to carry out an inspection and raise the necessary repairs. It had not repaired the leak. She said that she felt let down by the landlord and particularly its contact centre staff who she said,lack communication skills. There had been a failure to provide follow up and return her calls despite promises to do so.
    4. The leak had caused damage to her laminate flooring. She said that she had replaced the flooring 3 years earlier following a similar leak. The kitchen units were also damaged. These had swollen, smelt damp and mould had begun to appear. She felt that these were not safe to store food in.
    5. The boxing around the pipes was soaked and needed to be replaced. The ceiling plaster and cornice was damaged, both in the kitchen and the bathroom.
    6. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for the “emotional hardship and the incredible inconvenience and difficulties faced …”.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2023. It apologised that she had cause to complain. It had referred her feedback about the level of support she had received from the Contact Centre to the relevant manager to deal with internally. It said that in response to the repairs she had reported, it had:
    1. Raised an order to its contractor to attend to the ceiling in the bathroom and kitchen, the damage to the kitchen floor and the kitchen units. It said that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange to carry out the works.
    2. Referred her report of damp and mould to its healthy homes team. It had arranged for its specialist contractor to carry out an inspection.
    3. Noted that the leak had temporarily been fixed and that there was a need to wait for the electrics to dry out. It had arranged an appointment for an electrician to attend on 18 August 2023 to reinstate electrics to the kitchen and living room.
    4. Acknowledged that she had not had any hot water since 19 June 2023 following water affecting the boiler sockets. It offered compensation of £260 in recognition of 49 days loss of hot water, missed appointments, a lack of communication by the landlord, and the time and effort on her part. It had also awarded £40 as a gesture of goodwill for the money she had spent on buying extension leads.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2023 to say that the leak had started again. She said that it should cancel the appointment for the electrician to attend. The landlord’s specialist damp and mould contractor carried out an inspection of the resident’s home on 12 August 2023. It recorded that the leak was ongoing. It did not know the source of the leak and said that the landlord should carry out further investigations. It recorded that there was residual moisture and visible mould and mildew in the property. It also reported that there was damp and mould behind the kitchen cabinets due to the ongoing leak. It recommended works to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and to treat the visible areas of mould growth to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
  7. On 25 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to provide video evidence of the ongoing leak in her kitchen. She contacted it again on 4 October 2023 seeking an update as the leak continued. In response the landlord said that its surveyor was raising the necessary works to carry out further repairs to the pipework, this would involve the removal of her kitchen units. It said that it would keep her updated. The resident told the landlord on 5 October 2023 that she was seeking a legal remedy and that she had arranged an independent inspection. The resident also made an initial contact with the Housing Ombudsman’s Service on 10 October 2023.
  8. The resident continued to pursue her landlord for updates during November 2023. She contacted her local MP on 31 December 2023 about the ongoing leak. She raised a further complaint with the landlord on 3 January 2024. This was referred to the landlord’s maintenance team. On 16 January 2024, following further contact from the resident, the Service wrote to the landlord to ask it to escalate the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord spoke with the resident about her complaint on 18 January 2024.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. The letter provided a detailed response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for failures in its service and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It said that her “detailed account had shed light on shortcomings in our communication and service, and we deeply regret the impact it has had on you and your family. Further it said that it was committed to using residents feedback as a “foundation for ongoing training to prevent the recurrence of similar issues”. It then provided a summary of the issues raised by the resident. These were:
    1. The landlord’s response to the leak into her flat.
    2. The electrical issues and a lack of utilities.
    3. The delayed inspection and an absence of a resolution to the ongoing leak.
    4. Communication issues and the landlord’s lack of compassion.
    5. The damage caused to the property.
    6. Her request for repairs and replacements.
    7. A request for compensation.
  10. The letter went on to review the content and outcome of its stage 1 response. It gave an update on the works orders that it had raised as an outcome to her complaint. In responding to her complaint, it:
    1. Acknowledged that there had been “cross directorate service failure. It said:
      1. there was a lack of coordination between its staff members and its contractors.
      2. there had been a lack of replies to the resident’s requests for updates.
      3. its staff had failed to log reports following visits to the resident’s home which had created further delays.
      4. a lack of continuity of staff had led to a need for the resident to repeat issues. There had been long term staff vacancies and sickness which had impacted negatively on its services. It acknowledged its failure to effectively plan for and manage such absences.
      5. it found a lack of activity recorded on its system between July 2023 and January 2024.
      6. the landlord had traced the source of the leak to a neighbouring flat. It had carried out a forced entry on 23 July 2023 to undertake a temporary repair. It did not however have records of the action it had taken to gain access to carry out the more extensive works needed. This poor record keeping meant that it was unable at that time to seek an injunction to grant it further access. It was now taking steps to rectify this situation.
      7. it had found several failures with its repairs service. It recorded that its surveyor’s “delayed responses, incomplete information, and lack of consideration for the significant inconvenience and extreme nature of your domestic circumstances amplified the delays in repairs and worsened the situation for you and your family.
    2. The landlord offered its sincere apology for “the considerable inconvenience and distress caused on account of cumulative service failures on its part. It said that it would be working to engage with the occupant of the neighbouring property to remedy the leak and set out the follow up works that it would then carry out. It said that it would complete these within a 2 week period.
    3. It awarded the resident compensation of £3454. It provided a detailed breakdown within the letter of how this had been calculated.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2024 having received the landlord’s letter and said that she was happy with the outcome. However, with continued delays in the completion of works to repair the leak, the resident contacted the Service on 22 February 2024 to ask that it investigate her complaint.
  12. On 1 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord. She confirmed that all the repairs to her home had been completed. She expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had dealt with the repairs following the conclusion of the stage 2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 June 2024. Alongside an apology for the further delays that had occurred and an acknowledgement of its poor communication it offered the resident additional compensation of £660. This was in recognition of the further 3 month delay, and the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its service standards. It says that:
    1. For routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
    2. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
    3. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within four hours. The out of hours service will be to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk.
    4. The landlord would then complete the follow-on repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to keep its properties free from category one hazards, including protection from damp and mould.
  4. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. The landlord commits to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. Where the resident remained unhappy and wished to escalate their complaint, it would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. At the end of each stage the landlord will keep the complaint open to ensure that it has completed all outstanding actions.

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

  1. The resident first reported a leak into her home in June 2023. She told the landlord that the leak had affected the electrics to her kitchen and living room. The landlord appropriately raised emergency repair orders in response to the resident’s reports. There was however a slight delay in it arranging wider investigations into the source of the leak.
  2. The landlord’s records lack clarity about the actions it took to find the source of the leak. It was initially suggested that the leak was from the roof. Its contractor then provided a report which identified the possible source of the leak as a pipe located in the floor between the resident’s home and the flat above. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 3 July 2023. This was 2 weeks after the resident first reported the leak. The landlord was aware that the resident was without electricity to the kitchen and living room and had no hot water during this time.
  3. The surveyor said that the leak may be coming from the flat directly above the resident and raised further orders to trace the leak. It then traced the leak to another neighbouring property. It is unclear what steps the landlord took to access this property before it carried out a forced entry on 23 July 2023. It completed a temporary repair to stop the leak. There is no evidence of the actions taken by the landlord to complete the follow on works needed.
  4. In communication with the landlord on 6 February 2024, the occupant of the neighbouring property said that the landlord had not contacted him again following the forced entry. This was a significant failure as it allowed the leak to reemerge and persist for several months. While the leak was ongoing, it is unclear as to the severity of the leak into the resident’s home. Through her continued communication with the landlord the resident initially reported the leak as intermittent, then becoming continuous. She provided video evidence of the leak and said that the area affected was widening. On 30 January 2024 the resident reported that the leak had started to “drip on me as I wash the dishes”.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it can be difficult within a block of flats to find the source of a leak. The landlord’s records do not however detail the steps that it took to do so. There were 3 possible sources of the leak identified before it was finally traced to a neighbouring property. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated with the steps it was taking to find the leak. There is also a lack of evidence as to how it ruled out the other possible sources of a leak to ensure that there would be no recurrence. Further, it did not consider the impact that the leak had on the resident’s home. The landlord was aware that the resident was without electricity to her kitchen and living room and had no hot water. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the provision of temporary facilities or whether it should temporarily decant the resident from her home. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Once it had found the source of the leak and completed a temporary repair, the landlord should have ensured that it engaged with the occupier and that it completed the permanent repair. No record of its communication with the occupant of the neighbouring property has been provided. It is not clear from the records what actions it took to engage with the occupier before it carried out the forced entry.
  7. It is important that a landlord has clear procedures for dealing with access difficulties, particularly where damage is occurring to a neighbouring property. These should set out the steps that it will take to engage with a resident, including setting out the requirements of any tenancy or lease agreement. It is important that it keeps clear records of all contacts made. This will ensure that it is able to undertake a forced entry or seek an injunction to progress repairs. It is evidenced through the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident that such records were not maintained.
  8. In concluding its stage 2 response the landlord committed to progressing the repairs needed. This was to remedy the leak and to repair the damage to the resident’s home. The landlord began to engage with the resident’s neighbour at the same time as it provided her with its stage 2 complaint response. Plans were put in place to carry out works to the neighbouring property on 8 February 2024. The landlord’s records capture the internal communication between its housing and repairs staff in early February. It is clear from these that the occupant was unwilling to allow access. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had difficulties in accessing this property.
  9. The landlord appropriately sought legal advice. It updated the resident on 8 February 2024. It said that it would be taking steps to proceed with legal action against her neighbour. This would include an application for an injunction. This led to further delays in the landlord being able to complete the necessary works. It did not provide the resident with regular or timely updates about the steps it was taking. She was left to pursue the landlord for such updates. This was a failure by the landlord. There is no clarity within the landlord’s records as to when it finally completed the works to permanently repair the leak. The resident has confirmed that the landlord completed the works within her home on 1 May 2024.
  10. The continued delays caused severe detriment to the resident, with considerable damage to her home and the loss of essential utilities over an extended period. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her home. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a detailed review of the actions taken by the landlord to deal with the repair and to engage with the resident. This appropriately acknowledged service failure across its departments. In acknowledging these failures, it provided a level of detail within its response and a level of compensation that was appropriate and which in the Ombudsman’s opinion provided reasonable redress. 
  11. The landlord said that it would be undertaking an end to end review aimed at examining its policies and practices. The Ombudsman has recommended that it should ensure that the resident’s feedback in this case is considered as part of this review. Further it must review its procedures and guidance to staff. This should be for both its procedures for gaining access to properties in the event of urgent repairs and its record keeping.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.” The report further highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
  2. The landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection of the resident’s home by its specialist damp and mould contractor. This followed the completion of the temporary repair and was an outcome to the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 August 2023 and provided it with a report of follow on actions needed. The landlord’s records show that it completed works to install mechanical ventilation to the bathroom. It took further steps to treat the affected ceiling areas within the resident’s flat. However, as the leak was ongoing it did not address the issues within the kitchen area, and there is no evidence that it took steps to remove the kitchen units at this time.
  3. As outlined above there is no evidence as to the ongoing steps taken by the landlord to gain access to the neighbouring property to complete repairs to stop the leak. That it had not done so was inappropriate and represented a failure in its service to the resident. While the leak remained ongoing the wider issues of damp and mould could not be repaired. This caused further damage to the resident’s home. On 26 March 2024 the landlord raised an urgent order to remove 2 units from the wall in the kitchen. This followed a report from the resident that these were about to fall, the wall and the units crumbling due to the continuous leak.
  4. The landlord’s specialist contractor found issues of damp and mould within the resident’s home associated with the ongoing leak in August 2023. By March 2024 the leak had been ongoing for 7 months, affecting the condition of the resident’s home. The landlord did not take proactive steps to remedy the leak, leaving the issue of damp and mould in the kitchen area unaddressed. It only began to take steps to do so following the escalation of the resident’s complaint. This amounted to maladministration. The landlord made an offer of compensation both at stage 2 and in further correspondence with the resident in May 2024 which provides redress which the Service considers to be reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of reports of no electricity, heating, and hot water.

  1. The lack of electricity and the impact on the resident’s utilities was highlighted on 22 June 2023, following her initial reports of a leak. It is clear from the evidence presented that the resident was recommended not to use the electrics within the kitchen area until the leak was repaired. This had wider implications beyond the kitchen as there was an open plan kitchen living area. Further, the resident’s boiler was affected leaving her initially without hot water and later no heating.
  2. In responding to her initial complaint, the landlord acknowledged the impact of the loss of electricity. It compensated her for both the loss of electricity and the cost of buying extension leads to enable her to use electricity from elsewhere within the flat. At stage 2 it recognised its service failure and recorded the impact that the lack of essential utilities had on the resident and her family’s quality of life. It also highlighted a safety concern for the family. It further recognised the significant disruption to their daily routines and the emotional stress and anxiety this had caused. At this time an offer was made to the resident to provide temporary gas heaters. The resident declined the offer, but the landlord left this open.
  3. This issue was linked to the actions of the landlord to deal with the ongoing leak. There was significant detriment to the resident and her family as she was left without essential utilities over an extended period. There was sever maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this matter. Through its complaint’s process it acknowledged its service failure and offered compensation amounting to £1414. This was appropriate in providing a level of redress for the disruption experienced by the resident which is reasonable in the opinion of the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of multiple repair issues due to the leak.

  1. Having temporarily repaired the leak there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to address the damage caused to the resident’s home until she raised a formal complaint. At this point the landlord raised orders to reinstate her electrics and arranged for the damp and mould inspection to be carried out. It also said that its contractor would contact her to arrange to carry out the repairs. This included works to her ceilings, kitchen units and the kitchen floor. This did not take place. Further, as outlined above, there is no evidence that it acted to complete a permanent repair to the source of the leak. The landlord should ensure that it carries out repairs within a reasonable amount of time. Further, it has a responsibility to its residents to ensure that its homes are free from potential hazards and “fit for habitation”. That it did not actively pursue these repairs was a significant failure by the landlord.
  2. In responding to the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord raised repair orders to address the damage caused to the resident’s home. These included scheduling the attendance by an electrician once the electrics had dried out and an inspection by its damp and mould contractor. It did not however raise the remedial works required to the resident’s home until 5 February 2024. This was despite communication from its officer on 4 October 2023 telling the resident that it would do so.
  3. To progress the works required to the resident’s home, the landlord needed to remedy the leak from the flat above. As outlined, there were significant failings by the landlord in ensuring that this repair was completed promptly. The resident has expressed the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her throughout the 8 months that the leak was ongoing. The landlord did take steps through its complaints process and its later correspondence with the resident to acknowledge its failures and compensate the resident appropriately.

The landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping.

  1. Having first reported the leak in June 2023 the resident had to call the landlord several times for its contractors to attend. After the conclusion of her stage 1 complaint the resident had to chase for updates. The landlord’s records show that it did not respond to several contacts from the resident. As a result of the landlord’s poor communication, the resident was compelled to escalate her complaint and seek help through her MP and the Service. When she raised a further complaint with the landlord’s direct maintenance team in January 2024, there is no evidence that it responded to her. The level of communication by the landlord with the resident was poor throughout. This led to the resident’s increased frustration and desire to escalate her complaint further.
  2. Following the conclusion of its stage 2 investigation an action plan was set out. This included steps to engage with the occupant of the neighbouring property to repair the leak. It further provided a timeframe to undertake the necessary repair works to both properties. The initial plan to gain access to the neighbouring flat failed. This appears in part to have been hindered by the involvement of different officers due to changes in personnel. There is no evidence that the landlord revisited the action plan or that it provided the resident with a revised timeframe for the repairs to be completed. Having been unable to negotiate with the occupant the landlord then had to rely on the legal process which led to a further delay.
  3. There is also evidence of failures in the landlord’s own internal communications. It is noted that requests made of the surveyor to provide updates on the progress of works went unanswered. Its failure to communicate effectively between departments and with the resident is further evidenced through the communication of its complaints officer. The officer provided a detailed investigation at stage 2, acknowledging service failures and putting in place an action plan. She committed to keeping the resident updated but was clear that her engagement would end, as she would be handing over to another officer to monitor actions going forward. The landlord’s records indicated that the officer was often left chasing colleagues for updates. The officer did continue to engage with the resident, even after moving to a new role for the landlord. Her engagement and commitment to seeking a resolution for the resident, and the level of ownership taken is to be commended.
  4. There was however evidence of failures by other officers to respond to enquiries raised by the resident and to acknowledge the urgency of the matter at hand. There is little evidence of regular communication with the resident over the 8 month period her home was affected by the leak. The landlord’s records show that much of the communication was driven by the resident. This undoubtably left her feeling frustrated and let down by the landlord.
  5. The Service recognises that the landlord undertook a thorough investigation at stage 2 of its complaint process. It identified significant failures and awarded appropriate compensation. There were, however, further significant delays in concluding the necessary repairs to the resident’s home. This is likely to have been due to the difficulties faced by the landlord in gaining access to the neighbouring property. As highlighted through this report, there is a lack of clarity as to the steps it took. It is also unclear when the landlord finally completed the repairs to this address. There is little evidence that the resident was kept updated as to its progress, undoubtably adding to her frustration. There was a failure by the landlord in its wider communication and its record keeping which amounts to maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord issue the resident with a formal apology.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53. b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. Handling of the resident’s reports of no electricity, heating, and hot water to the property.
    4. Handling of multiple repair issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident. This should acknowledge its failure in communicating with her and keeping her updated as to the actions it was taking to deal with the leak. This should be provided by the service director responsible for the areas covered by this report. The apology should be written in line with the Services guidance on remedies.
    2. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication and record keeping. 
    3. The landlord should ensure that the resident has received the compensation it awarded at each stage of its complaints process totalling £4414.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Undertake a review its procedures and guidance to staff about the steps that it should take to gain access to properties in the event of urgent repairs affecting another of its homes. It should ensure that it has a robust process in place for maintaining clear and concise records about repairs and access arrangements.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should engage directly with the resident as part of the end to end review it is undertaking into its policies and procedures. This is to ensure that her feedback on the level of service she received is considered as part of this review. The Service would ask the landlord to inform it of its intentions towards this recommendation.