Peabody Trust (202326358)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326358

Peabody Trust

25 March 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 response to:
1. The resident’s report of damp, and its handling of the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s request that it replace the floor covering in the affected room.
3. The resident’s request that it provide alternative accommodation, and reimburse her for the cost of utilities.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and her wife are shared-ownership leaseholders. They live at the property with their 2 teenage children. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The lease started in December 2002, at which point the property was newly built. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
On 25 November 2022 the resident reported concerns about damp in her children’s bedroom. The landlord’s contractor carried out an initial inspection in February 2023. On 6 March 2023 a survey was carried out by a subcontractor. The report said there was rising and penetrative damp. It said remedial work was needed, including a chemical damp-proof course and a waterproof barrier to the floor.
On 30 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its response to her report of damp, saying she had not heard anything since the contractor’s inspection in February 2023. The landlord declined to log a formal complaint.
In April and May 2023 the resident and landlord corresponded about the scope of works to be done by the landlord. The resident asked the landlord to replace the laminate wooden floor covering after the works, as this had been damaged by the damp, and had to be lifted for the waterproof barrier to be applied. She also asked for alternative accommodation while the works were carried out. The landlord said it would only carry out external works. It advised the resident to claim the cost of internal works from its buildings insurer.
On 16 May 2023 and 12 June 2023, the resident repeated that she wanted to complain about the landlord’s handling of the matter, in particular its position that it would only carry out external works. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 June 2023.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out external works, including repairing the rendering on the building’s external plinth. The resident raised concerns about the quality and completion of the work.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord provided a schedule of works, as follows:
1. 5 July 2023 – inspection of window and painting works to external plinth.
2. 4 August 2023 – preparatory works in bedroom.
3. 7 August 2023 – extensive works in bedroom
Between 18 July 2023 and 1 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord at least 5 times, asking it to respond to her complaint, and confirm its position on:
1. Provision of alternative accommodation.
2. Reimbursement for the cost of electricity used to carry out the works.
3. Replacement of the floor covering.
On 2 August 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in works being scheduled, its lack of contact, and the need for remedial works to the plinth. It said the plinth would be re-inspected on 4 August 2023. It explained that, according to its policies:
1. It was not responsible to replace the floor covering, but the resident could claim on her, or its own insurance.
2. It was unable to provide alternative accommodation for leaseholders, with the exception of emergency situations or management transfers.
3. It was unable to compensate for the cost of electricity or water.
On 2 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 4 August 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out preparatory works, in the bedroom. Later that day the resident reported there was no electricity in both bedrooms and the lounge. She asked for the electricity in the bedroom that was not subject to works, and the lounge, to be urgently reconnected. This was done 4 days later.
Between 7 and 9 August 2023 the subcontractor carried out works inside the bedroom, including a chemical damp-proof course and a waterproof barrier to the floor.
On 14 August 2023 the resident told the landlord the waterproof barrier that had been painted on the floor was not yet dry, had a strong smell, and left marks on their shoes and furniture.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. It apologised for:
1. Gaps in communication and delays progressing the case.
2. The time taken for repairs to be completed.
3. The disconnection of the electricity, and the delay reinstating this.
4. Miscommunication about the drying time of the floor. It said it had asked its contractor to contact the resident to discuss options for protecting the floor while allowing use of the room.
It repeated its position at stage 1 regarding replacement of the bedroom flooring, provision of alternative accommodation, and compensation for the cost of utilities. It offered a total of £1,000 compensation.
After further correspondence with the resident, on 4 October 2023 the landlord provided an updated offer of compensation. It offered a total of £1,505.23, including a goodwill payment of £655.23 to cover the cost of replacement flooring.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Ombudsman on 11 November 2023. She wanted the landlord to accept liability for replacing the flooring, and provide an increased offer of compensation, reflecting reduced use and enjoyment of the property.
The resident has told us that after the completion of the internal complaints procedure the landlord agreed to replace the wooden floor covering, and this has now been done.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where it would be quicker, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
In line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request that it replace the floor covering has not been investigated. In her correspondence the resident has highlighted her position that the terms of the lease meant the landlord was liable to replace the bedroom floor covering. It would be more reasonable and more effective this for element of the complaint to be heard by the First-Tier Property Tribunal. This is because technical interpretation of the lease is required, beyond the expertise of the Ombudsman, and potentially a site visit may be required.

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence, the resident states she has reported damp to the landlord since at least 2014. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances. We must also consider whether the matters should have been escalated to our Service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation.
For this reason, it is not fair to either party to consider matters that have not been escalated previously over this extended period. Therefore, the investigation has focussed on the time period between September 2022 (6 months prior to the resident’s first attempt to raise a formal complaint) and August 2023 (when the stage 2 response was provided). Reference to events outside of this period is made for context only.

Response to report of damp and handling of associated repairs

The landlord’s damp and mould policy current at the relevant time said it would treat reports of damp and mould as urgent repairs, and a surveyor would visit within 10 working days of the report. The policy said the landlord would proactively seek out building defects contributing to instances of damp and mould, and undertake necessary repairs as a matter of urgency.
On 25 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a surveyor she had instructed had found “water seeping up through floor” of her children’s bedroom, and a crack in the external render letting in water. She said there was water seeping up through floor of her children’s bedroom. She was concerned a crack in the external render was letting in water. She was worried about the health and safety of her children. The landlord’s first response was to arrange a visit by its contractor to carry out a damp and mould wash on 23 December 2023. However, this was cancelled by the landlord on the day. The contractor visited in February 2023 (the records provided by the landlord do not give a specific date) and noted a survey was needed. A survey was carried out by a subcontractor on 6 March 2023.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to arrange a damp and mould wash (which was ultimately cancelled), rather than a survey. The resident’s report suggested serious structural defects. Although an initial damp and mould wash may have mitigated the impact, it would not have resolved a structural problem. The landlord did not act in accordance with its policy, which required it to be proactive in seeking out building defects contributing to damp and mould. It took more than 2 months to inspect at all, and 68 working days, (rather than the 10 working days required by the policy) to do a survey. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy. The delay was especially poor given the resident had expressed concern as to the health and safety of her children.
The landlord’s records show it was in possession of the survey report on 13 March 2023. This said there was rising damp and lateral penetration of ground water in the bedroom. It recommended further investigation as there may have been water ingress from defects in the window frames/sills, defective plinths, and/or external rendering. It listed repair works to be done, including a chemical damp proof course and a waterproof barrier to the floor.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to promptly share the outcomes of surveys with residents, and provide details of the works to be done. However, the landlord did not do this. The resident asked it multiple times between March and June 2023 to explain the cause of the damp, share a copy of the survey report, and provide a schedule of works. The initial information it provided was unclear. For example, on 18 April 2023 it told the resident it would only carry out “external” works, and the resident was responsible for all “internal” works. The landlord misdirected itself, and misadvised the resident, as to its responsibilities. While, as the freeholder, it was responsible for the structure of the building, and common parts, the fulfilment of this repairing responsibility required entry and works from within the residents home, for example the chemical damp proof course and waterproof barrier to the floor.
On 16 May 2023 (2 months after the landlord received the survey report) the landlord’s contractor explained the survey results, and works to be done, to the resident by telephone. However, the landlord did not give the resident a copy of the survey report until 15 June 2023, after she made a subject access request on 22 May 2023. It did not provide a schedule of works until 30 June 2023, which was after works had started, and this was insufficiently detailed to answer the residents queries. The communication delays, lack of clarity, and incorrect information provided by the landlord caused stress and frustration for the resident, who expended time and trouble making contact to request information.
The survey report received by the landlord on 13 March 2023 recommended further investigation of the window frames/sills, plinths, and external rendering. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord did this within a reasonable time. The landlord did not inspect the plinths and external rendering until 22 June 2023, more than 3 months after it received the survey report. The window frames were not inspected until 5 July 2023, almost 4 months after the landlord received the report. This is further evidence that it failed to inspect in anything like a sufficiently timely manner, and did not proactively seek out and remedy building defects contributing to instances of damp and mould, as required by its policy.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defined programmed repairs as works requiring additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade. Examples included damp works. The policy said programmed repairs should be completed within 60 calendar days. However, the external works did not start until 22 June 2023, 101 calendar days after the landlord received the survey report. The works inside the bedroom did not start until 4 August 2023, 144 calendar days after the landlord received the survey report. The main structural works were completed on 9 August 2023 (total of 149 calendar days). However, remedial works to the plinth were still outstanding by the time the stage 2 response was provided, on 24 August 2023 (by which time a total of 164 calendar days had passed).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in works being scheduled, the need for remedial works to the plinth, as well as for poor communication with the resident. However, the records seen do not evidence any reasonable justification for the length of the delay. As a result of the delay the resident experienced inconvenience and distress, and she and her family had reduced enjoyment of their home.
On 4 August 2023 the subcontractor carried out preparatory work in the bedroom. After the subcontractor left for the day, the resident reported to the landlord and its contractor that, although she had been told the electricity in the bedroom had to be turned off for the works to be done, there was no electricity in either of the bedrooms, nor in the lounge. She asked for the electricity the bedroom not subject to works, and the lounge, to be urgently reconnected. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, this should have been attended to within 4 hours. However, this was not done. The landlord initially arranged an emergency appointment for the evening of 4 August 2023, but the engineer did not attend until the evening of 5 August 2023, more than 24 hours later. This was unreasonable and in breach of the landlord’s repairs policy.
On attendance, the engineer advised the resident that, due to the way the electricity circuits were configured, the electricity in both bedrooms and the lounge would have to remain off for the duration of the works. It later transpired that this was incorrect advice. The subcontractor attended on Monday 7 August 2023 to start work in the bedroom, and advised the resident it had not been necessary to disconnect the electricity, just the electric storage heater in the bedroom. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors and subcontractors. It is clear from the records that there was a lack of proper care and attention in the planning and handling of this matter.
Once it had been established the work could be done without disconnecting the electricity, the electricity was not restored until 5pm on 8 August 2023. No evidence has been seen of any reasonable explanation for the delay. As a result of the landlord’s poor handling of the matter, the resident and her family were without electricity in both bedrooms and the lounge (including without the use of the electric storage heaters) for 4 days. The resident also expended time and trouble chasing the landlord to remedy the problem.
Between 7 and 9 August 2023 the subcontractor carried out works in the bedroom, including a chemical damp-proof course and a waterproof barrier to the floor. The resident was advised in advance by the subcontractor that the waterproof barrier, which had been painted on, would take 5 days to dry. However, on 14 August 2023 (5 days after it had been painted on) the resident told the landlord the waterproof barrier was not yet dry, had a strong smell, and left black marks on their shoes and furniture. As a result the room could not be used.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. It was appropriate that it apologised for
1. Gaps in communication and delays progressing the case.
2. The time taken for repairs to be completed.
3. The disconnection of the electricity, and the delay reinstating this.
4. The need for remedial works to the plinth.
It was appropriate that it acknowledged the resident had been misadvised about the estimated drying time for the waterproof floor barrier, which was 3 weeks. As the floor was still not dry, it said its contractor would contact the resident to discuss options, which may include putting down boards to cover the wet floor. This was reasonable.
The contractor put a temporary covering on the floor on 31 August 2023. By this time the resident had not been able to use the bedroom for more than 4 weeks, 3 weeks longer than she had been told to expect. By not correctly advising the resident at the outset, the landlord deprived her of the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for the time the room was uninhabitable. This was unreasonable. The incorrect advice was also frustrating for the resident, and damaging to the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord offered a total of £1,000 compensation at stage 2. This was broken down as follows:
1. £300 for time trouble and inconvenience for “moderate” disruption as a result of the works. It took into account the length of time for the repairs and conflicting information provided to the resident in relation to the works.
2. £250 for lack of response to correspondence from the resident, and delays in complaint handling.
3. £300 as a gesture of goodwill, to contribute towards the cost of a new floor covering.
4. £150 for “damp and mould survey March 2023 (already paid).”
It is unclear what the £150 for “damp and mould survey March 2023” was for. The resident asked for clarification on this but the landlord did not provide this.
The landlord continued to correspond with the resident after the stage 2 response and made an increased offer of compensation on or around 4 October 2023. It offered a total of £1,505.23, which included an increased payment for time, trouble and inconvenience of £450, and an increased goodwill payment of £655.23 to cover the full cost of replacement flooring.
It was reasonable that the landlord considered additional information from the resident after the stage 2 response, and reconsidered its position. This was around a month prior to the resident first making contact with the Ombudsman.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp overall, multiple instances poor practice have been identified:
1. Its response to the resident’s 25 November 2022 report was delayed, and initially inadequate. The policy said a surveyor would visit within 10 working days of the report, but it took more than 2 months for the landlord to inspect, and 68 working days for a survey to be done.
2. It delayed carrying out further investigations, as recommended by the 6 March 2023 survey.
3. It delayed carrying out repair works. The policy said programmed repairs should be completed within 60 calendar days. However, works did not start until 101 calendar days after the landlord received the survey report, and were not completed until a total of 149 calendar days after receipt. Remedial works to the plinth were still outstanding after 164 calendar days.
4. It disconnected the electricity in error on 4 August 2023, and did not reinstate it until 8 August 2023.
5. Its communication with the resident was poor. It was often slow to respond, unclear, and at times provided incorrect information. For example:
  1. It delayed sharing the outcome of the survey with the resident, and delayed providing a schedule of works.
  2. The schedule of works was insufficiently detailed.
  3. The landlord initially said it was only responsible for external works, which was incorrect.
  4. The landlord initially told the resident the estimated drying time for the floor was 5 days, not 3 weeks.
As a result of the above failings the resident experienced stress and frustration, expending time and trouble pursuing the repairs and her complaint. She and her family experienced inconvenience and distress, and had reduced enjoyment of their home.
Taken together, the landlord’s failings constitute maladministration. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £1,000. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, for maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement opportunities.

Request for alternative accommodation and reimbursement of cost of utilities

The landlord’s decant policy said only social housing tenants (not leaseholders) were eligible for non-emergency rehousing, except in the case of large regeneration works. Emergency rehousing would be provided if:
1. There was damage to the property resulting from a flood, fire, infection or infestation, making the home uninhabitable.
2. Or in situations where the health and safety of the household would be at risk, or there would be safeguarding concerns, should they remain in their home.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy said it would not reimburse utility costs, such as water or energy used to carry out a repair.
On 16 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide alternative accommodation for her family while the works in the bedroom were carried out. No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to provide its position until 2 August 2023, 11 weeks later. In the interim the resident contacted the landlord at least 5 more times, asking it to confirm its position. Her correspondence for this period shows she was increasingly frustrated and concerned as the date of work beginning moved closer and she received no response from the landlord.
On 2 August 2023, 2 days before the preparatory work in the bedroom was due to begin, the landlord told the resident it did not intend to provide alternative accommodation, or reimburse her for the cost of electricity used to carry out the works. Its position was in line with its responsive repairs and compensation policies, and therefore reasonable. However, the delay in responding was unreasonable. As a result it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and she expended time and trouble pursuing the matter. As she was uncertain of the landlord’s position regarding provision of alternative accommodation, she had reduced opportunity to make her own arrangements for alternative accommodation.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay responding within its 2 August 2023 response. The officer who responded explained that they had been on annual leave. However, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to arrange cover for staff on planned leave to ensure its service to residents is uninterrupted. It was poor practice that it did not do so. This further instance of poor communication and lack of responsiveness to the resident compounded her loss of faith in the landlord.
Considering the landlord’s handling of this matter overall, while it was entitled to take the position it did, its communication in relation to this was poor, and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in relation to this element of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay compensation of £100. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, but the resident experienced disappointment and inconvenience, expended time and trouble, and there were delays in getting matters resolved.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time. The policy defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, our employees or those acting on our behalf.” It clarified that complaints covered by the policy included delays in responding to an enquiry or request for information, and failure to provide a service.
The policy said new complaints would be logged within 5 working days as a stage one complaint. A response would be provided within 10 working days, unless an extension was notified and agreed with the complainant. The policy said extensions should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days was required, this must be agreed by both parties.
The policy said a stage 2 response would be provided within 20 working days of the request to escalate being received. If it needed more time, it would provide an explanation to the resident, with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days was required, this must be agreed by both parties.
On 30 March 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to her report of damp in December 2022. However, the landlord declined to log this as a formal complaint, because “the lack of response is solely due to the volume of emails we are currently receiving which we can only apologise for.” According to its policy, and the Code, an expression of dissatisfaction about delays responding to an enquiry should have been logged as a formal complaint. It was a failing that the landlord did not do so. This meant the resident had to wait longer than she should have done for the landlord to consider her complaint, provide a suitable remedy, or be able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Following further complaints made by the resident on 16 May 2023 and 12 June 2023, the landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 20 June 2023. This was 54 working days after the resident first said she wanted to complain, far outside the policy timescale of 5 working days. This was very poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement said it aimed to provide a stage 1 response by 26 June 2023. On 30 June 2023 it extended the deadline for its response to 7 July 2023. However, it did not provide a response by this date and did not contact the resident to explain the reason for the further delay, or to agree a further extension. As a result the resident expended time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response (6 times between 8 July 2023 and 1 August 2023). The landlord’s customer service centre told her on multiple occasions that the complaint handler would contact her as a matter of urgency, but they had not identified that the relevant officer was on annual leave. It was poor practice that the landlord did not arrange cover for the staff member on annual leave to ensure deadlines were met and communication responded to in their absence.
The stage 1 response was provided on 2 August 2023, 37 working days after the complaint was logged, and 85 working days after the resident first complained. While the delay providing a response was very poor, the tone and content of the response itself were broadly appropriate. The landlord gave a detailed account of relevant events, and explained the reasons for its decisions. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for areas of poor practice.
The stage 1 response said the delay in works starting was because “due to the cost of the works, the repairs were put on hold for a section 20 notice to be served to our leaseholders and for a consultation process to be completed.” However, in the stage 2 response on 24 August 2023 the landlord admitted that its records indicated the section 20 process was not followed. This factually incorrect information in the stage 1 response indicates a lack of care and attention in complaint handling.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 2 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 August 2023, and provided a stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. The acknowledgement and response were therefore within its policy timescales. It was appropriate that the stage 2 response acknowledged and apologised for areas of poor practice. It was also appropriate that it quoted from the landlord’s policy to explain its decisions.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall,
1. There were long delays:
  1. It took 54 working days after the resident first said she wanted to complain, until the landlord logged and acknowledged a formal complaint.
  2. The stage 1 response was 37 working days after the complaint was logged, and 85 working days after the resident first complained.
2. The stage 1 response contained incorrect information about a s.20 process having been followed.
As a result of the poor complaint handling, the resident expended unnecessary time and trouble, and her faith in the landlord was further damaged. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay £250 compensation. This is in line with the amount already offered by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp, and its handling of the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request that it replace the floor covering is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it provide alternative accommodation, and reimburse her for the cost of utilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,350, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress, arising from its handling of the her report of damp and its handling of the associated repairs.
  2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s request that it provide alternative accommodation, and reimburse her for the cost of utilities.
  3. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  4. The compensation is inclusive of the £850 for time, trouble and inconvenience; complaint handling, and damp and mould survey March 2023 offered by the landlord in its updated stage 2 response (which is the total of £1,505.23, minus the £655.23 to cover replacement flooring).
The landlord must carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. Specific attention should be given to the following:
1. Delayed and initially inappropriate response to the resident’s 25 November 2022 report.
2. Delay carrying out further investigations, as recommended by the 6 March 2023 survey.
3. Delay carrying out and completing repair work. Poor quality and incompleteness of some of the works.
4. Unnecessary disconnection of the electricity on 4 August 2023, and delay reinstating this.
5. Its communication with the resident, including speed of response, clarity, and accuracy.
6. Its oversight arrangements and cohesion across its relevant services, such as repair and leasehold services.
7. Its processes to ensure residents are not adversely affected when staff are away from the office.
8. When and how it will incorporate the findings of the review into its day-to-day operations.
The landlord must share a written report of the review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.