Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202120943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120943

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 Decemeber 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damaged asbestos tiles.
2. Repairs relating to leaks and a boiler cupboard.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived in the property, a 1-bedroom flat, since June 2021. The resident has known vulnerabilities, including depression.
Prior to the resident moving in, an asbestos survey was undertaken in April 2021 ahead of refurbishment works. This identified asbestos present in several rooms, including the kitchen, bedroom, and lounge. The risk of harm from all asbestos-materials was rated ‘very low’. Following this, and when the property was empty, the repair logs show the landlord completed works, including redecorating and replacing flooring.
In August 2021, the resident raised concerns through a local official, his MP, and the Citizens Advice Bureau that asbestos floor tiles were damaged by carpet grippers in the lounge. He said he was seeking reassurance through an asbestos air test. A further asbestos survey and an air sampling test was carried out on 1 October 2021. All materials were still assessed as presenting a ‘very low’ risk. The landlord though agreed to remove the damaged lounge tiles. Subsequently the resident reported that asbestos tiles in other rooms had been damaged. After considering the resident’s photographs, the landlord said there was insufficient evidence of other damaged tiles. Around the same time, the resident reported a leak from the property above. The landlord’s contractor recorded that this was resolved. It was not apparent, from the records seen, if there was a known repair relating to the boiler cupboard.
On 10 December 2021, the resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the condition of the property. He said he was unhappy that there were damaged asbestos tiles, “leaks in the middle and front of the flat”, and an “unfinished boiler cupboard”. Although this was acknowledged a few days later by the landlord and further clarity sought from the resident, there was no formal complaints investigation or response.
The resident contacted this Service in July 2022 because he had not received a response to his complaint. We contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Its handling of his reports that contractors damaged asbestos tiles.
2. Outstanding repairs to the boiler cupboard and leaking waste pipes.

He said he was seeking all outstanding repairs to be completed and alternative accommodation.

In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 28 July 2022, it said:
1. It was taking the resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos seriously but reassured it posed “no major health risk unless it’s damaged.”
2. Photographs of the further reports of damaged asbestos tiles in the living room and bedroom had been requested and not received.
3. An appointment to investigate and repair the leak was booked for 8 August 2022 and hoped it would bring a conclusion to this issue.
4. A repair to the boiler cupboard was not usually its responsibility to address but it would do so on this occasion. The landlord asked for a photograph of the damage.

The landlord concluded that it would complete repairs and would consider further evidence from him to support his reports about damaged asbestos tiles.

On 13 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He indicated he was unhappy with the landlord’s initial response. He also asked to be moved from the area.
Within the delayed stage 2 response, dated 23 October 2023, the landlord apologised that it had not understood “the gravity” of the resident’s concerns. It did not acknowledge any specific service failings, other than a delay in issuing the final response. The landlord agreed to complete the removal of the asbestos tiles and repairs relating to the leaks. It awarded £50 compensation for the delayed response.
There is no evidence, in the available records, that any of the agreed repairs have been raised or completed. The landlord has confirmed this and advised it is because the resident will not allow access to the property as he wants to be moved.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he is unhappy with the landlord’s offer to temporarily rehouse him while it undertakes repairs. The resident said that the circumstances of his complaint cause him significant stress and his health has suffered. As an outcome, he is seeking a permanent move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that the outcome he is seeking is to be moved to a different property. The resident’s reasons for this are understood. The remedies that the Ombudsman make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, as far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. These include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. It is not within the Ombudsman’s powers to order the landlord to permanently rehouse someone. Rather, consideration has been given to whether the landlord followed the relevant policy or procedures. Where we determine a failing, we may order the landlord takes a specific action, as outlined above, that is aimed at putting things right for the resident.
In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that his current living situation is impacting his health. While the Ombudsman is sympathetic, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part have caused.

Asbestos

The resident was concerned about the presence of asbestos in his home. His worry is understandable. According to the Health and Safety Executive, who is responsible for implementing laws on asbestos management, the material is unlikely to pose a risk if it is in good condition and in an area that is unlikely to be disturbed.
Under Section 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (the Regulations), the landlord has a duty to manage asbestos in its properties. The landlord’s asbestos policy, in place at the time of the events concerned in this report, acknowledges its responsibilities given the Regulations. To meet its obligations the policy says it will complete regular surveys and assess the risk of asbestos material when properties become vacant and prior to undertaking repairs.
The surveys carried out by a specialist asbestos contractor both before and after the resident moved into the property found some areas of damage to asbestos containing materials. It however assessed the potential for the materials to release asbestos fibres as “very low”. This was also confirmed by the asbestos reassurance test conducted on 1 October 2021, which did not detect harmful levels. The landlord, therefore, met its obligations to assess the risk of asbestos.
Both surveys recommended that most areas of asbestos be removed. It advised to do this on a “routine” basis. It defines “routine” as works to be addressed according to the landlord’s own asbestos management policy. While absent of defined timescales, the landlord’s policy says that “Asbestos materials that have been identified as sound, undamaged and not releasing fibres can remain ‘in situ’ as long as they are not likely to cause a health hazard to the public”. It was not required, according to the policy, to remove the tiles or any other area of asbestos. This is because, based on the survey and air test results, the landlord considered that the asbestos was not likely posing a health hazard to the resident.
The contact records show that the landlord had several conversations with the resident about the survey results. They also updated the resident’s local official in late October 2021 that the low rating score of the materials, “satisfactory” air test result, and the “inaccessibility” of the asbestos meant the risk was low and “unlikely”. Communication was important in this matter and, based on the records, we have seen that the landlord made reasonable attempts to reassure the resident.
In the stage 1 response from late July 2022 the landlord said that asbestos would only be removed if there was a recommendation to do so. It also said that asbestos “poses no major health risk unless it’s damaged.” These explanations were misleading and may have had the potential to add to the resident’s worry about having asbestos in his home. As explained, the landlord’s asbestos policy only required it to take action if it was likely to cause a health hazard and there was no evidence this was the case. While the landlord’s written response on this aspect, which is the only one it gave, was not helpful, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident was given correct information and advice at other times. Its efforts to allay the concerns of the resident, and of those contacting the landlord on his behalf, at the time were appropriate given the anxiety he said it was causing him. Therefore, we have seen that communication generally, apart from the stage 1, about the low risks from the asbestos were appropriate.
After the second survey, the landlord agreed to remove the asbestos tiles in the lounge and to temporarily rehouse the resident during the works. The resident then reported, in mid-November 2021, that asbestos tiles were damaged in his bedroom and hallway. In response the landlord asked for photographs to support his account. Although the landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not specify that it may ask residents for photographs, it was not unreasonable for it to request these be provided. This is because an asbestos survey and air test had recently been undertaken. It made no recommendations for priority or urgent works to remove asbestos in any room. When the resident was, in the landlord’s view, unable to provide evidence of the further damage it offered to arrange its contractor to inspect. The landlord also offered again to inspect the property in November 2022. There is no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the resident accepted these offers. In the circumstances, the landlord did take appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports that there were other damaged asbestos tiles.
Allowing access for repairs and maintenance works are a condition of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, a landlord may seek an injunction if access is withheld. We have seen that the landlord did consider if it should take enforcement action in July 2023. It decided not to take a legal course of action because of the low risk posed from the asbestos to the resident’s health. It has therefore acted appropriately. A recommendation is, however, made for the landlord to consider if it needs to take action in order to ensure it can demonstrate having met its ongoing obligations to assess and monitor the asbestos in the property.
In the stage 2 response from late October 2023, the landlord said it would remove “all the asbestos floor tiles in the main living areas.” It clarified that this was a change to its previous position to remove only the confirmed damaged tiles. The landlord offered no explanation for this. Like its initial response, the stage 2 was poor. It was lacking sufficient detail about what it had investigated and its decision. This was not in line with the complaints policy which said it would “look carefully at complaints and take steps to learn and improve from them where we can.” Nor was it in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (in place at the time). Section 5.6 of the Code required that all complaint responses “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. The quality of the complaint responses is something this report will return to later. While the landlord did not explain its decision regarding the asbestos removal, other records provided and explanations given to this Service indicate the landlord has offered to remove all asbestos tiles as a way forward. As stated earlier, we have seen no evidence that the landlord or its asbestos contractor has found asbestos to be posing a risk. Therefore, it was not, according to its policy, obligated to remove all materials. It was a reasonable outcome to the resident’s complaint and demonstrates a willingness to resolve his concerns and alleviate his distress.
Presently, the asbestos works have not been undertaken. The landlord advised in response to a request for an update on these that a repair was raised on 4 October 2023. While the repair logs provided show an order for the asbestos removal was raised in 2021 that was subsequently cancelled, they do not show another order being raised. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord contacted the resident about these again after the complaints process came to an end. This was inappropriate and not in line with section 6.5 of the Code (2022) which requires that “[a]ny remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
The sensitivities of this case are not lost on the Ombudsman. It was clear from the available records that the landlord offered to complete the works several times throughout the period this investigation has looked at. It was referenced in the contact records between the resident and landlord about the works, including notes of a meeting he had on 13 July 2023, that he was reluctant for the asbestos works to go ahead. The notes we have seen say he was requesting to be moved permanently. These are notes, and not directly the words of the resident. However, he has expressed the same desire to move to the Ombudsman. Even so, the landlord should have at least followed up with the resident having formalised its proposed solution.
The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord has appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about the asbestos in his home. It has offered a solution that goes beyond its obligations under its asbestos policy. However, its lack of communication with the resident after the stage 2 response was a failing. Therefore, a determination of service failure has been made in respect of this complaint.

Repairs

The landlord has a legal obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs it is responsible for within a “reasonable” timescale. According to the landlord’s repairs policy at the time, it aims to complete “emergency repairs”, such as leaks, within 24 hours. It also aims to carry out “general repairs” within 10 working days and “repairs exclusions”, which is not defined within the policy, within 20 working days. In cases where a landlord does not meet its published timescales, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate that these delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to prevent them.
As referenced earlier in this report, the landlord is required, by its own standards, to investigate complaints, and demonstrate learning where appropriate. The Code also requires it to address complaints in full and give clear explanations and decisions. Neither of the landlord’s complaints responses demonstrated that it had understood the issues, investigated them, or given a decision relating to the resident’s concerns about its handling of leaks. This was inappropriate by all standards it was required to follow. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, learn from, and put right any mistakes.
The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s email complaining about the leaks and asked for clarity about it within 1 working day. This was within the landlord’s 5 working day timescale for acknowledging complaints and that required by the Code. It was also in line with its complaints policy to contact the resident if any aspect was unclear. The landlord asked him if the leak was related to one its contractors had repaired in October 2021, if it was active, and whether there was any resulting damage. These questions were reasonable given its contractor had recently attended to repair a leak, noted as stemming from the flat above.
Repair logs show that a repair was affected on the same day. Although we have seen that the resident was in contact with the landlord after this email, we have seen no record that he responded to its request for more information. There is also no evidence, that we have seen, of him reporting leaks (or resulting damage) until he complained via this Service 7 months later. In the circumstances, the landlord made some reasonable attempts to establish if there was an outstanding repair. There is no indication from the evidence seen that the landlord was, or should have been, aware of any ongoing leaks or related damage it was required to repair up until the intervention of this Service.
In terms of the boiler cupboard, the landlord said in the acknowledgement that its contractor had been due to attend to repair in August 2021 but it “looked like” no-one attended. However, in the stage 1 response from July 2022, it said that the boiler cupboard was not a “standard repair” that it was responsible for. From the available repair and contact logs, it is unclear what issue the resident was reporting regarding the boiler cupboard. There are no records of a repair instruction being raised in relation to the boiler cupboard and no indication that the landlord ever established the nature of the problem. This is a failing given its obligations to the resident.
Despite advising that it was not responsible for the boiler cupboard, the landlord did offer to complete the repair, provided that the resident submitted photographs. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that he followed up on this request. While it is not possible to establish if the landlord was responsible for this repair, it has reasonably addressed this aspect by seeking further information.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight report on ‘Complaints about repairs’ highlighted the importance of clear and accurate record–keeping about repairs services. This is so it can demonstrate it has met its obligations to carry out repairs in a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
In its stage 1, the landlord said an appointment with its contractor was booked to attend to a leak. However, there is no evidence in any records, including the instruction to its contractor, that the landlord had contacted the resident prior to booking the appointment or issuing the stage 1 response. It is not evidenced that it sought to establish the nature of the leak, which was important in demonstrating it had met its obligations to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. This is also not in line with the landlord’s complaints process at the time, which said it would contact a customer if any aspect was unclear. Further, the instruction raised because of the stage 1 was cancelled twice. The repair and communication records do not indicate why this repair was cancelled. Again, this is important information that the landlord and its contractors should keep records of. The absence of the records means the landlord cannot demonstrate it met its obligations to fix the leak the resident reported in July 2022, which is a record-keeping failing.
There is evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident required additional support in late 2022. This was appropriate because the landlord’s Vulnerable Customer Policy and the Equality Act 2010 mean it has an obligation to make adjustments where someone has a vulnerability, such as depression. Although this contact appears mainly to have been prompted by the resident’s request to be moved and his concern about asbestos, it was appropriate to use the opportunity to discuss the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. According to the notes of this conversation, the landlord offered to inspect the property but the resident was “reluctant” at that time. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider a different approach to investigating the resident’s reports of leaks and/or resulting damage.
In January 2023, after the resident’s request to escalate his complaint, the repair logs show the landlord’s contractor attended a leak from the flat above, coming from a toilet. The notes state the contractor was to also inspect the resident’s flat. It is not apparent, from the records, that he was informed about this and if the contractor did attempt to inspect his property. Again, this is a record keeping failing which means the landlord cannot evidence it met, and was proactively attempting to meet, its obligations to complete repairs.
According to the contact notes provided, on 9 May 2023 the resident reported that 2 waste pipes had begun to leak, one of which he said could possibly damage electrics in his cupboard. The repair logs show that its contractor attended within 24 hours, which was in line with its emergency repair timescale. However, it was unable to resolve the leak until the next day due to needing access to the property above. The repair logs indicate the contractor reported to the landlord that the leak was “dirty water”, smelt, and had caused damage in the resident’s kitchen and hallway. The nature of the damage is, however, unclear. While the landlord acted appropriately to stop the leak, there is no evidence showing it was proactive in addressing the resulting damage its contractors had reported. This was a significant failing given the indication that the conditions may have been unsanitary.
As advised earlier, the landlord met with the resident in July 2023. This appears to have mainly concerned his request to be moved and his worries about asbestos in his property. We have seen no reference to the landlord discussing any other repairs with the resident. This was, in the Ombudsman’s view, a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was meeting (or attempting to meet) its repair obligations. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider, as it had done with the asbestos works, whether enforcement action should be taken.
The records show that the resident reported on 4 October 2023 that there was a leak from the property above into the kitchen. This appears to have been resolved on the same day based on a job card the landlord provided. According to the notes of the landlord’s discussion with the resident he indicated this leak was historic and that the stage 1 response said would be addressed in August 2022. He advised that there was a plaster mite infestation because of the time the leak had been ongoing for. As explained earlier, it was a failing that the landlord did not, based on the evidence it shared, establish and record the nature of and location of the leak the resident complained about. It means we have not been able to determine what happened to a reasonable extent. This is a failing in itself.
In the stage 2 response from late October 2023, the landlord said to resolve his complaint it would “make good any damaged areas”. It was appropriate to agree to complete the repairs, given its obligations. As explained earlier, the Code requires that outcomes offered as a resolution to a complaint must be followed through to completion. The landlord also said that it would “make sure” all repairs were completed. We have seen no evidence that this happened or that the resident was even contacted by the landlord again. It has failed, therefore, to meet the standards of the Code.
The resident has been living with outstanding repairs within the property for a long time. It is not possible to determine with any surety, due to the lack of records, for how long. It is also not possible to determine based on what the resident was reporting whether the leaks are separate or connected. The landlord’s record–keeping in this case was poor and has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to make an informed decision.
The Ombudsman does recognise that there have been some attempts by the landlord to engage with the resident about the required repairs. The records also show that the landlord found the resident was “reluctant” for it to gain access for repairs because he wanted to be moved. The resident also advised the Ombudsman that he is not satisfied with the landlord’s offer for a temporary move. He said he is seeking to be moved permanently. However, this does not discharge the landlord from its obligations. The Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration and makes orders for the landlord to put things right.
Findings in this report relating to poor repairs management and record keeping were consistent with a recent, previous investigation into the landlord’s handling of repairs. We made a 54.f wider order to consider implementing a management strategy in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. Given this, we have not made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas. However, we do order the landlord to explain how any of its learnings from the review will reduce the likelihood of the failings we have identified in its handling of this case being repeated.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time uses the Code’s definition of a complaint. This is any “expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action” on the part of a landlord. It also commits to responding within the timescales set in the Code. At stage 1, it would issue its response within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial formal complaint in December 2021. This was despite his repeated requests for it to do so in January 2022 and his response to its request to resend his complaint email. This was inappropriate and is indicative, in view of the findings made earlier, of a broader problem relating to the landlord’s poor record-keeping. The impact of this was it delayed the resident receiving a response to his concerns and from being able to refer them to the Ombudsman for independent investigation.
After we referred the complaint on 20 July 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response in 6 working days. This was prompt and within its published timescales. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, the explanations given about the landlord’s approach to asbestos management were misleading. It also gave no clear decision on the resident’s complaint about leaks.
Where the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, the landlord needed longer to respond, it would contact the resident, explain the reason, and write again within 10 working days. The landlord sent updates in which it advised of the need to extend the timeframes for responding at stage 2. It then exceeded both revised timescales and failed to let the resident know. This caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident as he had to pursue updates. Clearly this was unacceptable as it departed from its standards.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, it considers the stage 2 as an “appeal” of the stage 1. It also states that “Where the problem is a recurring issue, we will consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for our customer.” The Code requires that all complaint responses address all issues, provide explanations, and give a clear decision. The stage 2 response did not demonstrate how the landlord had considered any of the relevant history. Neither did it give a decision on the asbestos issue, as it should have done. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to support its actions or acknowledge mistakes.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it was delayed and offered £50 compensation. While it was appropriate to recognise its failing, the remedy was not proportionate for exceeding its timescales by more than 170 working days. The landlord offered no explanation for the time it took nor has it shown learning to avoid a repeat. Additionally, the landlord had previously offered in August 2023, in the second of its only updates to the resident, that it offered £100 for the delay. There was no acknowledgement of this offer in the stage 2 or evidence provided that this was accepted and paid. The resident advised that he has not received any payments.
As encouraged by the Code, the policy states that the landlord’s complaints team would generally investigate and resolve matters. They may “work with the most appropriate team to help with their response and investigation.” There was no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the complaints teams had oversight over the complaint or had effectively coordinated with the teams involved. Based on the available internal records, it seems likely the delay was caused by confusion about who had ownership of the case. This was a failing that was compounded by the fact the landlord provided little in the way of updates to the resident during that time. While the landlord’s meeting with the resident in July 2023 gave him some of the information he was seeking, it did not give him the formal, independent review of his complaint. Again, this was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
The landlord has taken some appropriate actions to put things right. These are not, however, enough to put right the impact of the extensive delays and poor quality responses on the resident. The failings include:
1. Taking around 7 months longer to give a response at stage 1.
2. Exceeding the stage 2 response time by about 9 months.
3. Not demonstrating it investigated the resident’s concerns.
4. Failing to give a clear decision on all aspects.
The landlord will be ordered to pay compensation of £300 in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedies.
We have previously made an order to review its complaints process following similar findings of a failure to meet timescales in an investigation in August 2024 (202226591). The landlord has complied with the order and has assured that it has better systems in place to ensure complaints are progressed in a timely manner. As the landlord has taken some action to improve, we have no further orders in relation to complaint handling and systems specifically. However, the landlord is ordered to explain how any changes are likely to avoid a repeat of the failings that occurred in the resident’s case. It is also ordered to demonstrate learning to improve the quality of its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damaged asbestos tiles.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs relating to leaks and a boiler cupboard.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £650, which is comprised of:
  1. £50 for distress caused by its failure to contact the resident about the asbestos removal works after the stage 2 response.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and poor responses in the complaints process.
3. Complete a survey of the resident’s property to establish what repairs are required.
4. Explain how any changes it has made or will make to its knowledge and information system and processes to improve:
  1. Repairs record-keeping and oversight of repairs.
  2. The quality and timeliness of complaint responses.

Recommendation

The landlord should give consideration to its Vulnerable Persons Policy throughout its contact with the resident to determine if there is any additional support it can provide him.
The landlord should consider consulting with its legal team about possible enforcement action should it find that the resident is reluctant to allow access to the property. Legal action should always be a last resort. However, in the circumstances, it may be appropriate in this case to ensure the resident’s health and the property do not deteriorate.