Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202228253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228253

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

7 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports about damage caused by the landlord’s installation of cabling.
2. reports of leaks causing damage to internal walls and damp and mould in the property.
3. reports about missing roof insulation above the property.
4. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 3 bedroom, fifth-floor flat. The flat is located on the top floor of the block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 19 December 2022. In this, she stated:
1. she was unhappy with the quality of the work that its contractor had carried out on 12 December 2022 to install cabling in the property and that they had damaged her wall in carrying out this work
2. the landlord had not replaced the insulation it removed from the roof above her property in 2018 and this was causing her additional heating costs
3. there were ongoing problems with damp at the property
The resident later issued a letter of claim via a solicitor on 2 March 2023 for a disrepair claim, which covered the repair issues raised in her complaint. There is no evidence proceedings have been issued.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. In this, it said:
1. it acknowledged its delay in responding to the complaint and that the resident had to approach this service on a number of occasions to get a response
2. it had attempted to arrange a surveyor’s appointment with her on 8 November 2022 and 25 November 2022 to assess the claimed damage to the walls. It said the resident did not respond to this
3. it understood the issue with the flooding had been resolved and explained that any damage was to be covered by the resident’s contents insurance under the terms of the lease. It also stated it was not liable for repairs to internal walls, installations or decorations under the terms of the lease.
4. as the resident had raised a disrepair claim any correspondence about this needed to go through her legal representative
5. it would offer the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience from its delay in responding to the complaint
On 25 July 2023 the resident requested her complaint to be escalated. She stated that:
1. the cable encasement was too bulky and prevented her from decorating the area
2. the landlord had damaged the wallpaper by drilling into the wall when installing the cabling
3. she wanted the landlord to return the cable encasement to its previous state and redecorate the area. She also did not accept the £100 offered and stated this did not reflect the inconvenience and stress she had been caused.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023. This primarily reiterated what it had told the resident at stage 1 and that any concerns regarding disrepair should go through her solicitor. It increased the compensation to £150 for the delays in responding to her complaint.
The resident and landlord both confirmed to this service that the disrepair claim did not continue to legal proceedings following the stage 2 response. However, the resident told this service she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the remedy offered.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.b of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure.
From the available evidence we have seen that the resident did make a complaint to the landlord, through a representative, on 4 November 2019 about the removal of roof insulation. The landlord responded to the resident and her representative on 21 November 2019. It described that the loft insulation had been removed in November 2018, as roosting pigeons had soiled it, and that it installed replacement insulation on 1 March 2019. As the resident only referred this to us on 14 February 2023, it was not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within a reasonable time. As such, we will not investigate it.

Scope

In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues with leaks, damp and mould at the property since 2005 when the landlord replaced windows in the building. The landlord has indicated that the resident raised concerns in February and October 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen documentary evidence that this was raised as a complaint until 17 December 2022.
We cannot investigate what happened leading back to 2005. As time passes records may not be available. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint this investigation focuses on events from December 2021 which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made.
In addition, the resident told this service that the damp and mould in the property had negatively affected the health of her and her children. She stated that it had contributed to her child developing asthma. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the court can rely on oral testimony and independent expert evidence. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Reports of damage caused by the landlord’s installation of cabling

Under the terms of the lease the leaseholder is required to repair, maintain and clean the interior of the property. This includes all conduits, pipes and cables which are laid in part of the building of which the property forms part and which exclusively serve the property.
The landlord’s responsive repair procedure states that where a leasehold property reports a repair it must consider whose responsibility the repair is under the terms of the lease. The responsive repair policy says that for repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility it will aim to complete these within the following timeframes:
1. emergency repairs, attend within 4 hours and restore major services within 24 hours, where further repairs are needed it will complete these within 24 hours within reason
2. routine repairs, completed within 20 working days of being reported.
3. the policy states the landlord will aim to complete repairs on the first visit within its timescales and to the resident’s satisfaction.
The landlord told this service that the background of this repair was a different complaint the resident had made about her intercom not working. Its stage 2 response to this on 17 November 2022 stated it had determined the fault was within the internal intercom within her property and it would raise an appointment with its contractor to repair this so the resident could use the intercom.
From this the Ombudsman’s view is that, though interior cables serving the property were the resident’s responsibility to repair under the terms of the lease, the landlord had agreed to take responsibility to complete this repair. As such it should have responded to any issues with the installation of the cabling in line with its responsive repair policy.
The landlord installed the cabling in the resident’s property on 12 December 2022. As the resident has not asked us to investigate the complaint about the intercom, this report will not comment on the events before this repair.
On 19 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that the trunking for the cables was bulky, prevented her from re-hanging the decorations she had removed to allow the work to take place and negatively affected the appearance of her hallway. She also stated the contractor had damaged the wall by drilling into this and had not put this right. She told the landlord she wanted it to make good the repair work and return the decoration of the area to its previous state.
The landlord responded on 20 December 2022. It asked the resident if she could send pictures of the poor workmanship she was complaining about and that it would raise the issue with its contractor to resolve. There is no indication that the resident responded to the landlord’s email. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was reasonable as it promptly responded to the resident’s concerns and sought further information to resolve the repair to her satisfaction in line with its policy.
The resident submitted a letter of claim through a solicitor on 2 March 2023. As part of this the solicitor stated that the resident was unhappy with the cabling installed on 12 December 2022 as it had changed the decoration of her flat and the landlord had damaged her wall during the installation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 March 2023, following this service’s request that it respond to the resident’s complaint about the cabling. It told the resident it needed to know why she was unhappy with the installation of the cabling and would consider sending a surveyor to inspect damage to the wall once it had this information. The resident had already provided this information on two previous occasions. It is not clear why the landlord did not have access to this information when responding to her complaint. This was a failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence that the landlord took action to inspect the cabling until 16 October 2023, when its surveyor attended regarding the alleged disrepair with damp and mould in the property. This was 10 months after the resident initially raised concerns and 158 working days after the letter of claim which set out why the resident remained unhappy with the repair. This was not appropriate as it greatly exceeded the timescales in the landlord’s policy.
The surveyor’s report from 16 October 2023 recorded that the cabling was not a disrepair issue. However, it recommended that the landlord investigate why it had installed the cabling in that manner and if it could replace this with smaller trunking.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord recorded that it believed the cabling was too thick to chase into the walls for health and safety reasons. It asked if a formal response could be provided to the resident about this. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known how the landlord investigated this and there is no evidence a further inspection took place. There is also no record that the landlord provided a further response to the resident. These were failures by the landlord.
The landlord has not offered the resident any remedy for her complaint about the damage caused by the cabling and the landlord told this service no further repairs have taken place. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was not reasonable. Though it would not ordinarily be responsible for repairs to cabling within a leaseholder’s flat, as it had taken responsibility to complete this, it should have investigated any concerns the resident had about the quality of the repair in line with its policy.
The resident told this service that she finds the trunking of the cabling unsightly and it affects the decoration of her hallway. The landlord could have considered this when following the surveyor’s recommendation.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the report of damage caused during the installation of cabling, in that it:
1. did not inspect the cabling for 10 months
2. did not adequately act on its surveyor’s recommendation to investigate if it could replace the cable trunking
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, though the impact on the resident would have been limited, it is understandable that she would have been caused a level of inconvenience and frustration considering the length of time the landlord had taken to respond to this.

Reports of leaks, damp and mould

The resident’s position, as set out in the letter of claim is that the landlord completed works to the windows in 2005 and that has allowed cold air into the property. In turn, she says this has caused damp and mould. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is required to repair and maintain the structure of the building including the roof, window frames and the external walls (except the interior faces of the walls that are within the property).
The leaseholder is required to repair, maintain and clean the interior of the property including:
1. the glass in the windows of the flat
2. interior plasterwork, tiling and other surfaces of floors, ceilings and walls of the property.
3. all conduits, pipes and cables which are laid in part of the building of which the property forms part and which exclusively serve the property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that where a resident reports damp and mould it will visit the property within 10 days. At this visit the landlord will consider the severity of the issue and, if possible, the cause.
The landlord accepts that the resident had contacted it about damp and mould in February 2022 and October 2022. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen copies of this contact. It is not known what the resident reported or the landlord’s response to this. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 17 November 2022 the surveyor responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. In this the landlord:
1. provided copies of previous damp and mould surveys from July 2017 and May 2021. It outlined that the findings of these were that the damp and mould were the result of condensation rather than a structural problem with the building
2. reiterated that it considered the recommendations from the May 2021 survey, to install and upgrade extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, would effectively remove excessive condensation from the property
3. noted that the resident had said it had completed repairs to neighbours’ flats. The landlord explained that as the resident was a leaseholder she was responsible for internal repairs to the property
4. provided advice on minimising condensation in the property
5. said it understood that the resident was primarily seeking information about the previous inspections but stated it would be happy to attend the property for another inspection or look at photographs of the resident’s concerns if she wanted further advice.
There is no evidence that the resident responded to the surveyor’s email. As part of the resident’s complaint about the cabling trunking on 19 December 2022 she outlined there were still issues with damp in the property.
The landlord’s response on 20 December 2022 explained that its surveyor had attempted to contact the resident over the past few weeks to inspect the property but had been unable to speak to her. The landlord explained that without getting access to her property for an inspection it could not respond to her concerns further. There is no evidence that the resident responded to this email to agree a time for an inspection to take place. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions between 17 November 2022 and 20 December 2022 were reasonable. It responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and attempted to visit the property to determine the cause of this in line with its policy, however the resident did not make arrangements for this to take place.
The resident submitted a letter of claim through a solicitor on 2 March 2023. In this the solicitor described that there was damp and mould in all 3 bedrooms, the bathroom and toilet of the property. In this letter the solicitor described the cause of the damp and mould was due to how the landlord had fitted the windows. Though the resident told this service that there had also been leaks from the roof there was no evidence the landlord was informed about this concern at the time and this was not referred to in the letter of claim.
From the available records the landlord did not respond to this letter of claim until 8 May 2023. Though the landlord stated in its response that it received the letter on 2 May 2023 there was no further evidence to explain the landlord’s delay in responding. Later records from the landlord corroborate the solicitor sent the letter on 2 March 2023.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what action the landlord took in response to the reports of damp and mould between 2 March 2023 and 8 May 2023 or what information the landlord gave the resident. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord requested for a joint survey to take place at the property in response to the disrepair claim. The landlord’s request did not include a planned date for the survey to take place.
The next record of the survey was on 2 October 2023 when the landlord contacted the resident’s solicitor. It stated it had unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident to arrange an inspection and asked it to inform her of the planned inspection to arrange a mutually convenient date. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence of when or how the landlord attempted to contact the resident following 29 June 2023 to arrange the survey. This was a failure by the landlord.
Following agreement with the resident the landlord’s surveyor carried out the survey on 16 October 2023. This was 228 calendar days after the resident informed it of the damp and mould in the property from her letter of claim. This was a failure by the landlord as it greatly exceeded the 10-day timescale from its damp and mould policy.
The surveyor’s inspection on 16 October 2023 made the following findings:
1. there was no evidence of gaps or water ingress from the windows of the property
2. damp readings were taken for the walls, ceilings and window reveals around the property. These were all dry and with no signs of penetrating damp.
3. there were slight mould stains in sections of the bathroom walls and ceiling and in one corner of the ceiling of the bedroom closest to the bathroom. The surveyor stated these were the result of condensation from the extractor fan in the bathroom being ineffective. The surveyor recommended that the resident install a new extractor fan to reduce condensation in the property.
4. The surveyor concluded there was no defects in the structure of the building which the landlord was required to repair under the terms of the lease. The surveyor said that under the terms of the lease it was the resident’s responsibility to washdown and clean the mould.
The surveyor’s report did not recommend any work or action to address the damp and mould in the property. From the available evidence we have not seen that the resident disputed any of the landlord’s findings after it forwarded this report to their solicitor.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to take no further action on the damp and mould in the property cannot be faulted because:
1. there was no evidence that the damp and mould had appeared due to a defect with the windows or other structure of the building which the landlord had a responsibility to repair.
2. it was the resident’s responsibility to clean and repair the interior surfaces of the walls and ceilings under the terms of the lease. As there was no evidence the damp and mould had appeared as a result of the landlord not carrying out its repair obligations it was reasonable for the resident to be responsible for the cleaning and removal of this.
3. though the surveyor recommended replacing the extractor fan the resident has responsibility for repairing conduits, pipes and cables within the property which exclusively serve that property. From the photographs of the inspection the extractor fan was located in the glass of the bathroom window, rather than through the external wall or other structural part of the building. As the replacement of the extractor fan would not require altering the structure of the property it was reasonable for the landlord to state that this was the resident’s responsibility to replace. This was also consistent with the advice the landlord previously gave the resident on 17 November 2022.
Notwithstanding that the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould was reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there were failures in the time it took to provide the resident with this response. The landlord has not acknowledged these failings in its response to the resident or offered any remedy to put this right.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was understandable the time taken for the landlord to carry out the damp and mould inspection would have caused the resident frustration in getting matters resolved.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould or its responses to these
2. did not complete a survey to investigate the reported leaks, damp and mould for 228 calendar days after the resident reported these issues again on 2 March 2023.
Whilst the delays were significant, it is clear that the landlord initially attempted to arrange an inspection in December 2022. When the letter of claim was issued, the resident was entitled to appoint her own expert to inspect the property. Even had the inspection been completed sooner, the outcome is likely to have been that there was no obligation on the landlord so the impact is likely to have been frustration caused by the delays.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about. We will refer to this as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between the two versions, otherwise the version will be specified.
As set out previously in its response to the resident’s complaint the landlord said that the resident had raised complaints about damp and mould in February and October 2022. In addition as part of a previous, unconnected, determination issued on 17 June 2023 the Ombudsman recommended the landlord should engage with the resident regarding her concerns of damp and mould and provide a response. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known when exactly these concerns were received, whether she had made a formal complaint and whether the landlord issued any response in line with its complaints policy. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
As set out previously, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 19 December 2022 about the damage caused by its installation of cabling and the insulation in the roof. The landlord responded the next day explaining that as the resident had contacted it about damp earlier that week it was bringing these together to respond to in a single email. The landlord stated that it ‘could raise these as a formal complaint’ but wanted to provide an update first.
Whilst the landlord’s decision to bring the resident’s repair issues together was understandable the resident’s email of 19 December 2022 was explicit that she was making a complaint. In line with the Code landlords are expected to recognise a complaint when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the standard of service. In line with the Code landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate in line with the Code and the resident should not have needed to confirm she was making a formal complaint.
On 14 February 2023 the resident approached this service and said she had not received a response. On 28 February 2023 this service contacted the landlord and told it to confirm the status of the complaint with the resident and to respond by 21 March 2023 or within 20 working days, depending on what stage the complaint was at. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with its policy without the involvement of this service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 March 2023. It stated it would need a further 10 working days to respond to the complaint and asked for further information about what she was unhappy about regarding the cable installation. Though the 2022 version of the Code stated that landlords can exceptionally extend a stage 1 response by up to 10 working days landlords were expected to provide an explanation to the resident for the delay. There was no evidence the landlord gave any explanation to the resident and, considering the delay in responding to the complaint from 19 December 2022, the landlord’s extension to issuing its response was not reasonable. As such the landlord’s actions were inappropriate compared to the Code.
The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response following its email of 17 March 2023 and the resident contacted this service again on 24 May 2023 for assistance. This should not have been necessary.
This service instructed the landlord to respond by 15 June 2023. The landlord issued its response on 14 June 2023, 120 working days after the complaint on 19 December 2022. This was unacceptable, the landlord greatly exceeded the timescales of the Code and this service had to intervene on 2 occasions before a stage 1 response was issued.
As part of the response the landlord briefly outlined the previous actions it had taken in November and December 2022. However, it stated that as the resident had started a disrepair claim any communications about this need to go through her legal representative and the landlord’s disrepair team. The landlord offered £100 as compensation for the delay in responding but offered no other remedy. This was not appropriate. In line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould we expect that landlords should use their complaints procedure to address complaints until legal proceedings have been issued to maximise the opportunity to resolve disputes outside of court.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2023. As part of this she stated that the landlord had not addressed the point about the damage to the wall caused by the installation of cabling and she was unhappy with the compensation offered as this did not reflect the inconvenience caused.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023, 23 working days after the escalation request. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the timescales of the Code or the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was extremely similar to its stage 1 in terms of the information it gave the resident about her complaint. It also did not specifically address the issue of the damage to the wall. It stated it would arrange for a surveyor to visit the resident if she gave a suitable time but reiterated that communication about the disrepair claim had to go through her legal representative and the landlord’s disrepair team. It increased the offer of compensation for its complaint handling to £150 for the delays in responding but offered no other remedy.
This was inappropriate. As set out previously we would expect the landlord to use its complaints process to resolve complaints until legal proceedings were issued. In line with the Code we would also expect landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The resident specifically requested in her escalation that the landlord respond to the issue about damage to the wall, as it did not do this its actions were not consistent with the Code.
As set out previously the landlord offered the resident £150 as compensation for its delay in responding to her complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident considering the extent of the delay and the other complaint handling failings which the landlord did not identify in its response.
In summary it is the Ombudsman’s opinion there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the resident’s complaints about damp and mould from February and October 2022 or its response to these at the time
2. did not initially treat the resident’s complaint of 19 December 2022 as a formal complaint without a valid reason
3. significantly delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in line with the timescales of its policy, taking approximately 6 months to provide a response despite this service’s intervention
4. delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 in line with the timescales of its policy
5. did not provide a meaningful response to the resident at either stage 1 or 2 and inappropriately told her all correspondence about the issues should be carried out through the disrepair process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the replacement of roof insulation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is because the landlord responded to this complaint in November 2019 and she did not escalate this complaint to this service within 12 months.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of damage caused by its installation of cabling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £450 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the frustration caused to the resident from the delay in inspecting the cabling work and acting on the surveyor’s recommendation.
  2. £100 for the frustration caused to the resident from the delay in arranging a damp and mould inspection.
  3. £300 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. complete the surveyor’s recommendation and investigate if it can replace the cable trunking and either:
  1. complete the repairs to replace the trunking and redecorate the area as necessary. If the landlord cannot commence these repairs within 28 days, it must set out to the resident (within 28 days of the date of this determination) when the works will commence. It must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed promptly and within 10 working days of the date given to the resident.
  2. confirm to the resident in writing that it is not possible to replace the trunking and explain the reasons for this. The landlord must still assess whether there is evidence of damage to the wall from how the cabling was installed, and repair and redecorate this if so.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a management review of its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should consider:
1. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
2. its current procedures for handling complaints where a disrepair claim has been initiated and whether changes are required to maximise the opportunity to resolve these out of court
3. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review specified in paragraph 73 of this report. The landlord must provide this report within 56 days of the date of this determination.