Notting Hill Genesis (202422119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422119

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

17 July 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, and flooring repairs after a sewage flood in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of a person urinating in the communal areas of her block.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2017. The property is a 4-bedroom ground-floor flat, which she lives in with her 3 children. The resident informed us she lives with epilepsy, depression, anxiety, severe back pain and 1 functioning kidney. In addition, 2 of her children live with conditions including asthma, anxiety, panic attacks, ADHD, and autism. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the family.
On 21 October 2021, the resident asked the landlord to have the communal carpets cleaned due to a smell of urine, caused by someone urinating on the carpet. It responded the same day saying it would write to all residents and arrange a deep clean.
The resident has experienced numerous incidents of sewage entering her property through her shower, toilets, and wash hand basin. The incidents that most recently preceded her complaint were in January and February 2023. On 2 March 2023, the landlord raised an order to replace the carpets and vinyl flooring in the resident’s property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 June 2023. She said:
1. Her property had been flooded with sewage. The landlord’s operative had not laid the new vinyl flooring properly. They had left glue in several places and had not sealed it correctly at the joints and front door.
2. The operative’s laying of the floor had “smashed in part of the wall”. She had pointed this out to them at the time. They had filled the hole they had made but did not paint it.
3. The sewage had damaged a number of her possessions, including some with sentimental value that had belonged to her father.
4. She had been told by the landlord to contact her insurance company. She disagreed with this. She believed the sewage flood was its responsibility and that it should reimburse her for the lost items.
5. She wanted sandbags to block the toilet doors in case it happened again.
6. All residents had received a letter about someone urinating in communal areas and removing rubbish from the communal areas. She hoped the landlord had not meant to direct the letter at her. The items on the communal landing were from her property that the landlord was responsible for taking away.
7. She had been reporting the issues with urine to the landlord for several years, but it had not taken any action. The smell was unbearable. She wanted the landlord to clean the area.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 June 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the sewage back surge in the resident’s property.
2. It had spoken to the contractors who had laid the floor. They said that the resident had begun to move her belongings back into the property, which may have contributed to the final (unsatisfactory) finish. It had instructed the contractors to return on 29 June 2023 to address her concerns about the flooring.
3. It was sorry the resident had lost items due to the sewage. Contents insurance was used to pay for an individual’s possessions. It would not be able to reimburse her for the damaged items.
4. The letter about urination and rubbish in communal areas was not directed at the resident.
5. It was considering placing additional cameras in the area to find the person responsible for the urination. It had obtained quotes for the replacement of the ground and first floor carpet, but did not want to conduct the work until the perpetrator had been found.
6. It had also arranged for the carpet to undergo a further clean until it was replaced.
7. It had requested sandbags from its contractor and was waiting for a response.
8. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 July 2023. She said:
1. It was possible for the landlord to order and deliver sandbags within 24 hours, but she had not received any.
2. The level of compensation offered was “an insult”. The landlord had continued to tell her about contents insurance. She felt it should pay the bill because it was responsible for the damage.
3. Someone continued to urinate in the communal areas. The smell was “very bad”. Visitors had commented that it was “disgusting”.
4. The landlord should remove the carpet because even when cleaned it still smelled and was much worse in the summer months. She wanted it to install vinyl flooring which was easier to clean.
5. The landlord had left her to take responsibility for cleaning the area.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 October 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
2. It sincerely apologised for the distressing experiences and the emotional strain placed on the resident and her family.
3. The issue with the sewage was due to defective drains servicing the block. To mitigate future instances, it had implemented quarterly flushing of the drains.
4. It would coordinate with the resident’s housing officer to ensure she received the sandbags.
5. The issue with the communal carpets and urination was difficult to resolve. It was considering replacing the carpet with vinyl, but as this would affect service charges it needed to consult with residents before going ahead.
6. It aimed to install CCTV as a deterrent to those perpetrating the antisocial behaviour. The resident’s housing officer would be in touch to discuss the next steps.
7. It was sorry for the loss of the resident’s sentimental items. It acknowledged that nothing could replace such items, but offered £500 as compensation for the losses.
8. It also offered an additional £100 for the late response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
9. It had escalated the issues regarding the deterioration of the resident’s decking to her housing officer.
10. It again recommended that the resident obtain contents insurance, and provided an advisory leaflet.
In the resident’s conversation with this service she said she wanted the repairs carried out correctly and for the landlord to reimburse her for her lost and damaged items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the resident’s complaint she said that the experience associated with the sewage incidents were stressful. However, she did not directly complain about the landlord’s handling of the sewage floods in her property. We are therefore unable to assess these issues as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord must be given adequate opportunity to respond. Upon discussion with the resident, she told us that she intended for her complaint to concern all aspects of the sewage incidents. We have therefore made an order at the end of the report for the landlord to contact the resident and ask if she would like to raise a complaint about its handling of the sewage floods in her property. She may refer any such complaint to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, removal of waste and flooring repairs

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. This responsibility is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement, as well as the landlord’s responsibility to keep common halls, stairways, lifts, and passages in reasonable repair and fit for use.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines 3 repair categories and their corresponding repair timescales. Emergency repairs will be responded to within 4 hours to make safe. Standard repairs will be completed within 20 working days, while the timescales for replacement or improvements will be discussed and agreed with residents.
The landlord’s compensation policy requires it to compensate residents fairly, proportionately, and appropriately where it has failed to meet its service standards. The policy allows for payments up to £250 depending on the level of failure. Higher payments can be authorised by management where the specifics of a case demonstrate multiple failures or exceptional hardship.

Provision of sandbags

As part of her complaint on 7 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide sandbags. She said she needed them to block the toilet doorways to prevent sewage reaching other parts of the flat in case of further incidents. Given the resident had experienced a number of sewage floods by this point, her request was reasonable. We consider that the landlord should have considered this measure at an earlier stage. The operative who attended the sewage flood on 13 February 2023 said “I have no doubt the issue will happen again and it is beyond my capability to resolve an issue of this magnitude.” The landlord’s failure to provide the sandbags shows a lack of foresight and planning in an area that it knew was vulnerable to such serious incidents.
On 13 June 2023, there was another sewage upsurge into the resident’s bathrooms. However, the landlord had not delivered the sandbags as asked. Its failure to provide such an essential and inexpensive item was significant. While the sewage did not overflow onto the property’s floors in this instance, the possibility that it could likely caused the resident worry and distress knowing she would not be able to contain the sewage.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 June 2023, it told the resident that it had requested sandbags from its contractor and was waiting for a response. She did not receive the sandbags subsequently, and requested them again in her escalation request on 4 July 2023. In another email on 16 August 2023, she said she had asked for sandbags several times but she had not been given any. Despite her repeated requests, the landlord still did not provide the sandbags, which was inappropriate in the circumstances.
On 6 October 2023, the manager that issued the stage 2 response told the resident that they would coordinate with her housing officer to ensure she received the sandbags. On 19 October 2023, she informed the landlord she had still not received them. It responded the same day and said her housing officer had been made aware as it had advised in its stage 2 response. On 24 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and told it there had been another sewage flood on 21 October 2023. She said she had no sandbags or flood kit to contain the sewage. The resident told this service that she never received the sandbags. The landlord’s failure to deliver the sandbags was unacceptable and a failure to offer the resident a basic service, which caused her significant distress and inconvenience. It also led to unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord for a basic preventative measure. In addition, the failure shows poor internal communication and inadequate communication between the landlord and its contractor.

Reimbursement for damaged goods

The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for the possessions that the sewage had damaged. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can make a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which may be covered by insurance. We have, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure, and whether it followed good practice when reaching its decisions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation where “there is damage and the resident believes that we, or a contractor working on our behalf, are at fault”, as “in these cases a liability (insurance) claim can be made where negligence will need to be evidenced”. As the resident claimed that the landlord was liable for the damage to her possessions, it should have informed her how to make a liability claim to its insurance team. Further, the policy states it will not pay compensation for damaged items that would ordinarily be covered by a resident’s own household insurance, “unless it stems from a failure on the landlord’s part”.
Prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint she was advised by the landlord to contact her home insurance about the items damaged by sewage. It repeated this message in its stage 1 response. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy state that it is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installation provided for sanitation, flushing systems, and waste pipes. Any defect was therefore the responsibility of the landlord to rectify in line with its procedures. Its evidence demonstrates that it did not take sufficient action. An internal note states: “It was agreed with the leasehold team and M&E that there would be quarterly flushing of the drains to prevent the issue of back surges; however, this was never followed through… [sewage] back surges in the lower ground properties could have been avoided if the jetting of the drains had been carried out as previously advised.” As a result, and in line with its compensation policy, the landlord was responsible for compensating the resident for the lost and damaged items. Its position prior to and within the stage 1 response was unreasonable and not in compliance with its policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said, “while nothing can truly replace those cherished possessions, we would like to offer you £500 as a form of compensation for your losses”. This was an appropriate step by the landlord. However, it has not shown that it discussed the offer with the resident prior to making it. This would have been an appropriate step to help decide if the sum was reasonable in relation to the cost of the items she lost, either sentimental or otherwise. Further, it still did not explain to the resident that she could make a claim against its public liability insurance for her damaged possessions. In effect, this prevented her from making a claim and potentially recovering a figure that may have been closer to the £2,000 she estimated her losses at, which was unreasonable.
In addition, the landlord again recommended that the resident obtain her own contents insurance. There is no evidence supplied by the landlord or resident to suggest she did not have contents insurance. Her position was that she did not feel that she should have to claim off her own insurance because the fault was the landlord’s responsibility. Its continual reference to her own contents insurance would have been frustrating for the resident, especially as the landlord had not advised of its own insurance provisions.

Flooring repairs

On 2 March 2023, the landlord raised a job to have the carpet and vinyl flooring in the resident’s property removed and replaced. On 21 March 2023, the resident told it that she was unhappy with how the operative had laid the floor. However, she agreed to wait until the work was complete before making a final judgement. The same day the landlord told her that it had spoken to the contractor, who confirmed the resident had begun moving items into the property before the flooring had fully set. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she advised there were gaps in the joints of the floor and that the flooring had glue spread over it. She also said the operative had put a hole in the wall when bringing the flooring into the property. After her experiences with the sewage, the difficulties with the flooring repairs and the damage caused would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor completed the work on 8 May 2023, but that the resident disputed the job was complete due to the quality of the finish and damage to the wall. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed its operatives would attend on 29 June 2023 to address the resident’s concerns with the floor. The records do not show if this inspection took place, nor are there any other records to show if it conducted further repairs to the floor.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The resident informed us that the floor was not repaired and that its condition deteriorated further. She said that some joints had not been sealed, which allowed water to penetrate through when mopping. As a result, the concrete surface below the vinyl floor was crumbling. The resident said she reported this several times, the last time being 15 October 2024. The repair records for the job state, “repair closed no works carried out as contractors needed to source materials”. The resident first reported the issue on 15 March 2023, and while the landlord said that the resident may have been partially responsible for the quality of the finish, it never confirmed this. This lack of clarification was unhelpful and caused uncertainty for the resident. Further, the landlord’s repair notes offer no insight into any inspections undertaken or actions agreed, which is a sign of poor record keeping.
In line with the landlord’s policy, it should complete standard repairs within 20 working days. At the time of our investigation, the floor had been defective for a period of 28 months. This is an unacceptable timeframe, which is significantly outside the requirements of the landlord’s repairs policy. The duration of the repair and the condition of the floor have caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time.

Conclusion

In not delivering the sandbags to the resident, the landlord left her unnecessarily vulnerable to sewage entering parts of her property that could have been protected. This was unsatisfactory, especially given the low cost and minimal effort needed to provide such a simple measure. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s loss of sentimental items and damaged possession was also unsatisfactory. It did not appropriately reflect on the circumstances of the case or consider its own responsibility for the damage caused. Not doing so was unfair to the resident and denied her the opportunity to make a claim. With regard to the resident’s flooring, it was appropriate that the landlord conducted the initial repair. However, unreasonably it has not shown how it followed up on the resident’s dissatisfaction with the work. It has also allowed the floor to remain defective over an excessive period of time. The landlord’s lack of action across all aspects mentioned above likely left the resident feeling deprioritised and unheard. For the reasons highlighted, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, and flooring repairs after a sewage flood in the resident’s property.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused. It did not break this down or show what elements of the complaint the compensation applied to. In its stage 2 response it offered £500 specifically for the loss of goods. It did not increase its offer of compensation for its continued failure to provide the sandbags or complete the flooring repairs. This would suggest the landlord had not adequately learnt from its mistakes and put things right for the resident in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have therefore awarded an additional £600 compensation. This exceeds the maximum payment in the landlord’s policy. However, the sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident.
The resident also informed this Service that items damaged by the sewage remained in her back garden, which the landlord said it would take away but did not. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to remove these items.

Reports of urinating in the communal areas

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. We consider that the resident’s report of someone urinating in the communal areas fits within the landlord’s definition of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure documents set out its process for responding to reports of ASB. When it receives a report, it will contact the reporting party within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. In deciding what action to take, it will complete a risk assessment that considers the nature, frequency, and impact of the problem behaviour. It will then develop an action plan.
In the landlord’s internal evidence pack for the resident’s 2023 complaint, it confirmed that “someone has been urinating in the communal area for a few years”. The first record of the resident notifying the landlord of the smell of urine from the carpet is 21 October 2021. In that email she said, “the smell of urine is terrible”. The landlord responded to the email the same day saying it would write to all residents of the block. However, there is no evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident to properly understand the frequency of the issue or impact of the problem on her. It has also not supplied evidence to show that it undertook a risk assessment or action plan. While it was appropriate to write to the residents, the landlord has failed to show that it fully complied with the required steps in its ASB procedure. Consequently, the landlord did not keep the resident updated, which would have been frustrating for her.
In the resident’s complaint she told the landlord that she had reported the issue with the urine over a number of years, but that it had not taken any action. In its stage 1 response it said that it was considering the installation of CCTV. It did not list any other actions it had taken or was proposing to take. The procedure requires the landlord to investigate ASB reports, and states that the nature of the investigation will depend on the risk posed. On 4 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the smell of urine was “really bad” and that her visitors had described it as “disgusting” and did not want to come to her property. This was no doubt embarrassing for the resident and likely diminished the peaceful enjoyment of her home.
Her comments should have led to a thorough investigation by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered surveys (this could be in person, i.e. door knocks, or postal/anonymous) to gather evidence, increased patrols of the area at different times, and erecting signage. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it undertook an investigation, which was inappropriate and a failure to follow its policy. On 23 August 2023, the landlord wrote to all residents about the urination in the communal areas. It asked for anyone with information to come forward and confirmed it would take legal action against the perpetrator. It also said it was considering the installation of CCTV. The letter was an appropriate step, but insufficient on its own to identify a perpetrator.
In its stage 2 response on 6 October 2023, the landlord again told the resident that it was considering the installation of CCTV and that her housing officer would be in touch to discuss next steps. It has not provided evidence to show it did contact her. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we cannot conclude that appropriate contact took place.
The resident made 3 separate requests for the carpet to be cleaned or changed to vinyl flooring. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it had obtained quotes to replace the carpet, but that it was reluctant to do so until found the perpetrator. The cleaning records supplied to this investigation show that the block was cleaned 8 times in 21 months. However, 6 of these instances are described as general cleaning and 2 periodic cleaning. It is therefore not possible to tell how often the landlord cleaned the carpet as a direct result of the urination issue. The resident’s reports indicate that any cleaning that did take place was ineffectual and left her continually exposed to the strong smell of urine, which was distressing for her.
The resident told us that the problem has now stopped. The landlord’s evidence does not provide any records or contemporaneous notes to show whether it found the perpetrator or whether they simply stopped or moved away. Its passive approach to the investigation meant the problem persisted for a prolonged period of time, with the carpets only being changed in January 2025. Further, the resident reports that when the fitter replaced the carpet, they stopped short of coming to her door because they ran out of carpet. This was a failure to complete a quality repair and caused the resident unnecessary frustration. Overall, we have found that there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. We have therefore made an award of £200 compensation. This is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2–stage complaints procedure. It commits to acknowledging complaints and escalation requests within 2 working days. It will then respond at stages 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The policy requires the landlord to contact the complainant at the acknowledgement stage. This is to ensure that it understands the complaint and the expected outcomes. The policy also requires officers to take appropriate actions to investigate the complainant, which can include visiting them or arranging a telephone or video call.
The resident raised her complaint on 7 June 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 14 June 2023. It then issued its stage 1 response on 26 June 2023. The acknowledgement and response were slightly outside the timescales in the policy, but the delay did not cause detriment to the resident. However, in line with the policy she should have been contacted by the landlord to discuss the complaint, but there is no evidence this happened. The absence of this contact led to the landlord not fully understanding the resident’s complaint. In her conversation with us she said that the complaint was about her property being repeatedly flooded by sewage, the landlord’s handling of those incidents, and its failure to take action to stop the floods occurring. Not having the opportunity to explain this as required by the policy was unreasonable and has caused the resident significant frustration.
In her escalation request on 4 July 2023, the resident said that she did not believe the landlord had complied with its commitment to have the sewage pipes flushed regularly. She also raised issues about her decking. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), the landlord should have logged these reports as a new complaint. Unreasonably, it did not do this, which left those aspects of the resident’s complaint unanswered.
In the stage 2 response the landlord said it would pass the issue regarding the decking to the resident’s housing officer. However, it did not mention the resident’s complaint about flushing of the drains. This was inappropriate and likely left the resident feeling unheard. Further, she has informed us that the decking has continued to deteriorate and is now unsafe. We have therefore made an recommendation for the landlord to inspect the decking and conduct any necessary repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 47 working days outside the 20–working–day target. In the response it acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £100 compensation, which was reasonable. Nevertheless, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is due to its failure to contact the resident to discuss her complaint at stage 1 and its further failure to raise a new complaint about the drains and decking at stage 2. We have also made a further award of £100 compensation. This is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, and flooring repairs after a sewage flood in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a person urinating in the communal areas of her block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from its chief executive to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £1,750 compensation. This sum is inclusive of the money already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £850 already offered in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  2. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the provision of sandbags, reimbursement for damaged goods, and flooring repairs after a sewage flood in the resident’s property.
  3. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a person urinating in the communal parts of her block.
  4. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident and ask if she still wants to have sandbags provided. If she does, the landlord must deliver a number that is sufficient for the purpose they are needed.
4. Contact the resident and ask if she would like to make a complaint about its handling of:
  1. The repeated sewage floods into her property.
  2. The damaged decking.

Due to the resident not having the opportunity to discuss her previous complaint at stage 1, the landlord should not apply unnecessarily restrictive timescales to the parameters of the complaint.

Contact the resident to obtain details of any vulnerability information she would like it to record on its systems.

Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must install a section of carpet into the uncarpeted area outside the resident’s door.
Within 12 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should assist the resident to make an insurance claim under its public liability policy. If a claim is not possible or has been prejudiced by the delay, the landlord should consult with the resident on whether the £500 was a sufficient sum of money for lost and damaged items.

Recommendations

The landlord should visit the resident’s property and
1. Remove the items from her back garden that were damaged by the sewage.
2. Inspect the decking for damage and safety, including the lighting. It should then produce a timebound schedule of works for any necessary repairs.