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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202215481)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215481

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 May 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for sound proofing.
    2. The landlord’s decision not to replace the gas fire.
    3. The delays in replacing the resident’s boiler.
    4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water dripping from the overflow pipe.
    5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for the exterior walls to be rendered.
    6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records.
  2. The landlord told the resident on 3 March 2020 that his complaint about noise transfer was closed and it would not investigate the matter further.
  3. The resident reported his boiler was faulty on 4 January 2021 following the annual gas safety inspection. The landlord attended on 5 January 2021 and told the resident on the following day that the parts required were obsolete and it needed to fit a new boiler. It said it was not viable to replace the gas fire and it offered a replacement electric fire. The offer was refused by the resident because he wanted the gas fire replacing on a ‘’like for like basis.’’ He arranged for the boiler to be repaired himself. He said the landlord deliberately sabotaged the central heating system to force him to accept a cheaper alternative.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 7 February 2022 about a dripping overflow pipe which he said had been leaking since August 2021. The landlord visited the property on 15 March 2022 and confirmed there was a slight leak from 1 of the 3 overflow pipes. It said access would need to be gained to the upstairs flat to identify if the leak was originating from there. The resident asked the landlord on 23 March 2022 for an update on the rendering works that were scheduled to take place at the front of his property.
  5. The resident’s complaint about the boiler and gas fire were investigated by this Service in March 2022 (complaint reference 202108331). It concluded there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the boiler repairs. The landlord was ordered to provide the resident with an update on its plans to replace the boiler. No maladministration was found in relation to the landlord’s decision not to replace the gas fire.
  6. The resident’s complaint about the dripping overflow pipe was investigated by this Service in July 2022 (case reference number 202121641). This concluded there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the dripping overflow pipe. The landlord was ordered to pay £200 compensation.
  7. The resident made a complaint on 18 July 2022. He said the landlord had failed to upgrade his central heating system or resolve the issue with the dripping overflow pipe. He also said it had not repaired the damage to the external walls or provided sound proofing to stop the transfer of noise.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2022. It said it raised a job to render the walls, but its contractor did not have the availability to do the work. A new contractor was employed but it was unable to book an appointment with the resident. It also said the other issues raised by the resident had been previously investigated and it would not respond to these matters again.
  9. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2022 following contact from this Service. It said it had previously responded to the resident’s complaints about the central heating system and dripping overflow pipe and would not investigate these matters again. It also said its contractor had tried to book an appointment to complete the rendering work but had not been able to make an appointment with him. It offered an apology and £50 compensation for failing to address the resident’s complaint about the noise transfer and said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit.
  10. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 August 2023. It said:
    1.  It had raised a repair for the central heating system and would monitor the situation until the work was completed.
    2. The resident’s complaint about the external walls was closed in April 2022 after he accepted £500 compensation. Its contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment to complete the work.
    3. It should have checked with the resident in November 2022 if he wanted a repair ordering for the dripping overflow pipe. A job had been raised and it would monitor the situation until the work was completed.
    4. Its response on 9 November 2022 to the resident’s complaint about the noise transfer was incorrect and he should have been referred to the Housing Ombudsman. This was because he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. 
    5. It would offer the resident £255 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
  11. The landlord increased the offer of compensation to £305 on 15 September 2023. This was because it ordered the repair to the overflow pipe on the wrong address.
  12. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 24 January 2024. He said his central heating had not worked since January 2021 and he had to rely on the gas fire in the living room. He also said the landlord had not completed an annual gas safety inspection since 2021 and the overflow pipe was still dripping. The rendering work was completed in March 2024. He wanted the landlord to fit a new boiler and instal the electric fire which he had recently agreed could be fitted. He also wanted the landlord to fix the dripping overflow pipe and undertake the soundproofing work.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his request for sound proofing. This is because the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.’ In this case, the resident raised a complaint in 2011 and exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure at the time. The resident was advised by this Service on 30 January 2021 that it would not investigate the matter.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s refusal to replace the gas fire. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about the gas fire was determined by this Service on 31 March 2022.

The delays in replacing the resident’s boiler.

  1. Whilst the resident said he reported issues with the central heating system since January 2021, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s response from March 2022. This is because this Service made a determination about the matter on 31 March 2022.
  2. In this case, the landlord did not dispute its repairing obligations. It contacted the resident on 12 April 2022 following receipt of the determination from this Service and reiterated its position. This included noting the back boiler was obsolete and new regulations had been introduced which required it to install an A rated efficiency boiler. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its gas engineer and offer to fit a new boiler. This was in accordance with its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for keeping the installations it provides in good repair and working order. This includes heating systems and water heating.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide further information to the resident on 13 April 2022 in response to specific questions he raised. This included noting that it was required to comply with legislation and regulations. It also said it was responsible for providing heating. It did not, however, confirm the resident was required to provide access or set out the steps it would take to ensure it met its repairing obligations. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and ensure the work was expedited in a timely manner. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for an independent assessment of the boiler given the resident’s claims of sabotage.
  4. Whilst the landlord noted the gas safety inspection was overdue and there was a safety risk, there is no evidence it acted on this or considered whether legal proceedings were appropriate. The landlord says it will do this and seek an injunction if a resident fails to cooperate. This meant it did not meet its duties under the gas safety regulations. These say landlords must ensure gas operated appliances are competently checked, tested and serviced on an annual basis.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 26 April 2022 that it needed to replace the resident’s central heating system. It said it wanted to do this without resorting to legal action. This was appropriate, provided clarity and ensured it managed the residents’ expectations. The housing records confirm the resident responded to the request, but the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of his reply. Neither is there any evidence it responded to his email of 23 May 2022 in which he challenged the decisions it had made. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and reinforce its position that it needed access to carry out the work. There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to gain access to the property to carry out the work.
  6. The housing records confirm the resident asked the landlord on 15 July 2022 to cancel the annual gas safety inspection scheduled for 25 November 2022. He said this was because he did not have a ‘‘functioning’’ central heating system. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request. Neither did it respond to his email of 18 July 2022 in which he noted the landlord had refused to upgrade his heating system and deliberately sabotaged it.
  7. The landlord told the resident on 9 November 2022 in its stage 1 complaint response that his complaint about the central heating system was closed in March 2021 after he accepted compensation. It also said he had not experienced any further problems with the central heating system and it would not investigate the matter further. This was not appropriate given the resident did not have central heating and given its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This led to delays in expediting the work.
  8.  There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 19 November 2022 and 23 November 2022 in which he noted he would employ a contractor to repair the heating system. Neither is there any evidence it considered pursuing the legal options open to it despite making reference to this in an internal email. The landlord said the annual gas safety inspection was completed on 25 November 2022 although the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the certificate. The resident disputed these claims and said the heating system had not been serviced since January 2021. The job to replace the boiler was cancelled in December 2022 by the landlord.
  9. The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response on 1 August 2023 that a job had been raised for the central heating system. It also said it would monitor the heating repairs until completion and maintain regular contact with the resident. The job was cancelled on 7 August 2023 as the resident said he would not be bullied into making an appointment. Whilst this Service acknowledges the frustration experienced by the resident, he did have an obligation to allow access as stated in his tenancy agreement. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed its position at this point and reminded the resident of his obligations under the tenancy agreement, including issuing warnings and instigating legal proceedings if appropriate.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a new appointment on 9 August 2023. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer to discuss the works with the resident on 11 August 2023 and to try to book a further appointment on 23 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 9 September 2023 in which he asked for details about the work that was going to be carried out. He said he wanted the work carrying out on a ‘‘like for like’’ basis. This was a missed opportunity to engage with the resident and agree the scope of the works.
  11. It is unclear why the landlord told the resident on 12 September 2023 that it needed to visit and complete an assessment as he had not reported any issues with the boiler. The landlord confirmed on 15 September 2023 in its final complaint response that it raised a job in March 2021 to replace the boiler and made several attempts in 2021 and 2022 to arrange the works, but this was declined by the resident because he wanted the landlord to fit a new gas fire. Again, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident had no central heating. Neither did it set out the steps it would take to meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  12. The resident told the landlord on 26 September 2023 that the issue with his central heating had not been resolved. He said he would not agree to an appointment until the landlord agreed to replace on a ‘like for like’ basis. There is no evidence it pursued an injunction to gain access as recommended in an internal email. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 28 September 2023 to try and make an appointment, there is no evidence it confirmed in writing what work would be carried out. This was despite the resident specifically asking the landlord to do this.
  13. In summary, the landlord failed to meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s’ tenancy agreement. Whilst it is acknowledged the resident did not allow access and this was a mitigating factor which contributed to the delays, the landlord failed to replace the boiler or use the legal powers available to it to gain access and carry out the necessary work. Neither did it explain what work would be carried out, as requested by the resident. This led to unreasonable delays and the resident was left without central heating for over 2 years. The landlord also failed to communicate effectively with the resident at times and did not manage his expectations. This led to confusion and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Given these failures, there was maladministration by the landlord in replacing the resident’s boiler. In this case, an amount of £700 compensation is appropriate for the unreasonable delays in replacing the boiler and the detrimental impact the lack of heating had on the resident and his ability to use and enjoy his home.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water dripping from the overflow pipe.

  1. Whilst the resident said he reported the overflow pipe was dripping for several years, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s response from July 2022. This is because this Service made a determination about the matter on 13 July 2022.
  2. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 18 July 2022 that the overflow pipe was still dripping and he had to change the layout of his garden. The landlord responded on 19 July 2022 and said the issue was resolved on 4 July 2022 following a visit to his neighbour’s flat. There is no evidence it clarified the position with the resident or responded to his email of 27 July 2022 in which he noted the landlord’s comments were ‘‘complete drivel’’’ given the overflow pipe was still dripping. It did, however, book an appointment to visit his neighbour’s home on 2 August 2022. The inspection took place on 3 August 2022. This was in accordance with its repairs and maintenance procedure. This says appointable repairs will be completed in 28 days.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an update on 9 August 2022. This included noting that it had carried out an external and internal inspection of his neighbour’s flat and could find no trace of a leak. It offered to visit the resident so he could highlight which overflow pipe was dripping or alternatively, he could send in video footage. There is no evidence the resident responded to the offer or provided the landlord with any video footage, although he said he did. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident on 9 November 2022 in its stage 1 complaint response that the matter was closed in August 2022 given it did not receive any further contact from the resident.
  5. The housing records confirm the resident noted the repair was still outstanding on 20 October 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information.
  6. The housing records confirm the landlord raised an inspection on 19 March 2023 although it has not provided this Service with any information on the outcome of the visit. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a repair for the dripping overflow pipe following contact from this Service on 15 June 2023, it did not do this until 31 July 2023. This was not in accordance with its repairs and maintenance procedure. This says it will raise repairs within 24 hours of being notified. The appointment was booked for 14 September 2023.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its position in its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023. This included noting it had difficulty locating the leak and accessing the upstairs flat. It also acknowledged its communication with the resident and the information it provided him was not to the standard it expected.
  8. Whilst the landlord left a message on the resident’s answer phone on 3 August 2023 and confirmed the date of the appointment on 9 August 2023, the job was incorrectly raised for the resident’s address rather than for the upstairs flat. This led to delays and caused confusion. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident on 11 August 2023 and 22 August 2023 to provide a copy of the video footage he recorded of the leak. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him. There is no evidence the resident provided any video footage.
  9. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 12 September 2023 given he queried why the appointment had been booked and said he would not provide access. It cancelled the appointment on 13 September 2023 given the repair was ordered for the wrong property. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise on 15 September 2023 for doing this and to confirm a new job had been raised for the upstairs flat. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident again for a copy of the video footage.
  10. The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 22 September 2023 to agree access arrangements. Unfortunately, she was not in a position to do this, but agreed to contact the landlord once she had returned home. There is no evidence she did this. Whilst this Service acknowledges this was a mitigating factor that contributed to the delay in resolving the issue, there is no evidence the landlord followed this up and attempted to gain access. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reminded the resident’s neighbour of her obligations under the tenancy agreement, including issuing warnings and instigating legal proceedings if appropriate.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the problem with the dripping overflow pipe was not resolved in its final complaint response on 15 September 2023. It said this was due to difficulties locating the leak and gaining access to the upstairs flat. It also apologised for incorrectly ordering the work on the wrong address and noted it did not receive any video footage from the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further repair. The offer of £50 compensation was reasonable at the time and had the landlord put things right for the resident, this would have been considered reasonable redress. Given the leak is, however, ongoing an award of an additional £50 compensation is appropriate. 
  12. In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It is evident the landlord did take steps to identify the source of the leak including visiting the neighbour’s home. It did not, however, monitor the situation or take action to gain access to the upstairs flat. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times and it did not keep him updated in a timely manner. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this in its complaint response. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water dripping from the overflow pipe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for the exterior walls to be rendered.

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the external walls on 30 March 2022 following a request from the resident. It said it had previously carried out an inspection but the work was not included in the order that was passed to its contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on 1 April 2022 and to confirm the rendering work had been completed to the building but not to his flat. It did not, however, offer an explanation for this. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 4 April 2022 that it was unable to do the work. It is understood the resident accepted £500 compensation from the landlord in April 2022 following a complaint he made about the matter, although it has not provided this Service with any information regarding this.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 5 July 2022 and 2 August 2022 in which he asked for an update and an explanation as to why the contractor was not returning to complete the work. The housing records confirm the landlord raised an order on 3 August 2022 for the works to be completed on 14 September 2022 by a different contractor. It tried to book an appointment with the resident on 11 August 2022 but this was refused by him. It said this was because he wanted the work doing by the original contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident on 16 August 2022 that the original contractor could not do the work due to lack of availability. The job was cancelled by the new contractor on 22 August 2022 given no response was received from the resident, despite a request for him to make contact.
  3. The resident asked the landlord on 13 September 2022 for an explanation as to why the work was not done at the same time as the rest of the building. There is no evidence the landlord progressed the matter or contacted the resident again until 9 November 2022, when it asked him to confirm a suitable appointment date. There is no evidence he did this. It did, however, raise an order on 25 January 2023 with an appointment booked for 11 March 2023. It is unclear from the housing records why the work was not completed on this date.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 1 August 2023 that a new order had been raised to carry out the work and that it would closely monitor the situation until the repairs were completed. It told the resident on 9 August 2023 that it had arranged an appointment for 14 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to discuss the works with the resident on 11 August 2023.
  5. The housing records confirm the landlord attended on 14 September 2023, but was unable to complete the repairs. It is unclear why the work was not carried out. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology in its final complaint response on 15 September 2023 and to confirm that a new job had been raised.
  6. In summary, there were delays in carrying out the work and the landlord did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident. This caused him distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for the external walls to be rendered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 18 July 2022, but this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 2 August 2022. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. There is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking. Its complaints procedure says it will discuss concerns and agree actions with residents.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2022. This was in accordance with the 10 working day target set out in its complaints procedure. Whilst it addressed the resident’s concerns about the delays in rendering the external walls, it did not respond to his complaints about the leaking overflow pipe or the boiler. It said this was because it had previously addressed these issues at stage 2. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have told the resident he could escalate these aspects of his complaint to this Service given he had exhausted its complaints procedure. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to reopen the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2022 following contact from this Service. Although the complaint was acknowledged on the same day, there is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s concerns or the outcomes he was seeking. It issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2022. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. The landlord closed the complaint on 29 November 2022 given it received no response from the resident. This was in accordance with its complaints procedure.
  4. The housing records confirm the resident made a further complaint on 28 January 2023, although it is unclear what this was about given the landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the complaint. It told the resident on 31 January 2023 that it would not investigate the issues he raised as he had exhausted its complaints procedure. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the resident to this Service at this point. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says landlords should provide details to residents on how to escalate the matter to this Service if they remain unhappy.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to reopen the resident’s complaint on 3 July 2023 following contact from this Service. It acknowledged the complaint on 10 July 2023 and told the resident it would provide a response by 31 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 July 2023 and told him it needed more time to investigate his complaint and it would provide a response by 10 August 2023. Whilst this was in accordance with its complaints procedure, it did not agree the extension of time with the resident. Its complaints policy says it will do this.
  6. The housing records confirm the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 31 July 2023. It issued its final complaint response on 1 August 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology and £255 compensation for its poor complaints handling. This was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy. This says it will offer compensation for delays or poor responses to complaints. Payments up to £400 are made in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.  The landlord also identified learning from the complaint.
  7. The landlord issued a further final complaint response on 15 September 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience and confusion that was caused after it ordered the repair to the overflow pipe on the wrong address. It increased its offer of compensation by £50 to £305 to take account of the mistake it made. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident.
  8. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and it did not initially offer compensation to the resident. There were also delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It did, however, offer an apology and compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about sound proofing is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the gas fire is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in replacing the boiler.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests to render the external walls.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking overflow pipe.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,155. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays in fitting the boiler.
    2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his requests to repair the leaking overflow pipe.
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his requests to render the external walls.
    4. £305 previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and agree a plan of action to replace the boiler and fit an electric fire.
  4. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to visit the resident and agree a plan of action to identify the source of the leak and remedy it.
  5. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm with the resident whether there is a valid gas safety certificate for the property and if not, arrange for its completion. 
  6. Within six weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices and record keeping in relation to annual gas safety inspections.