Sanctuary Housing Association (202341075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341075

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Rising damp affecting the resident’s living room, dining room and kitchen.
2. Penetrating damp affecting the resident’s dining room, bedroom and bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of her associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s home.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded. However, the evidence shows that the resident has told the landlord multiple times that she has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She has also told the landlord that she has angina. Both are conditions that can affect breathing and cause breathlessness.
It is not clear from the evidence seen when the resident had first reported damp. She told us that it had started in the ground floor dining room at the back of her house with damp patches appearing above the skirting boards.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised an order for a specialist contractor to carry out a damp survey.
The damp survey was done on 9 June 2023. The contractors report, dated 16 June 2023, said it had found:
1. Penetrating damp in a rear bedroom and dining room. It said the cause was defects in the rainwater goods and suggested there may be an issue with the render on the rear wall. It made no recommendations for repair work to resolve the issues.
2. Rising damp in the dining room and living room. It recommended that a chemical damp proof course be injected, airbricks installed in the dining room wall, replastering and replacing removed skirting boards.
On 20 October 2023, the resident reported that rainwater was overflowing her gutters. The landlord raised an order for them to be cleared out.
Later that day, the resident made a formal complaint which said:
1. Someone had visited to inspect the damp in February 2023 and said air bricks should be put in the wall of the room affected. She had chased the work and the landlord had told her it had no record of the visit.
2. Her gutters were blocked and there was moss growing on the rear wall of her home.
3. The chimney breast wall was wet and there was a crack and dampness under her bay window in her living room.
4. She had to wait a long time to get through by telephone and her calls had not resolved the issues.
5. Her local energy advice partnership had reported the damp to the council’s environmental health team.
6. Having to chase the landlord was inconvenient and stressful. Spending hours on the phone made her depressed and waiting for calls that never came made her anxious.
7. The damp and mould were ruining her walls and decorations. She had COPD and angina and was worried about the effect on her health. It was also costing more to heat her home.
8. She wanted the landlord to do the repairs needed to resolve the damp and mould.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 17 November 2023 which said:
1. It had raised an order to wash down and treat her hallway on 27 February 2023 but its records were not clear on the outcome of the visit it had made. It apologised for this.
2. It had asked a specialist contractor to do a damp survey but had then delayed ordering the work needed.
3. It acknowledged that she had chased it multiple times and that it had not kept her sufficiently updated. It should have also given her reassurance over her health concerns.
4. It had now authorised the work needed and its contractor would be in touch with her soon. It had also ordered for the gutter to be cleared by 5 January 2024.
5. It was sorry for the delays and inadequate communication. It offered £400 compensation.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 19 November 2023. She said she remained dissatisfied because:
1. The landlord’s investigation of her complaint had not been sufficient. It had referred to work in her hall which was an unrelated matter.
2. It said it had raised an order for her gutter to be cleared but that work should have been done before now. She had reported it herself and it was due to be done by 21 November 2023. The hopper head should have been repaired too.
3. It had not explained the cause of the delays or given a timescale for when repairs to resolve the damp would be done. She asked why it had taken 9 months for the landlord to order the repairs. The delays and chasing had caused her stress.
4. Its repairs contact centre had not returned her calls as promised.
5. The compensation offer did not reflect the damage done to her home and décor, or her increased heating costs. Nor did it reflect the mental distress and impact of worrying about her health due to her COPD.
On 21 December 2023, the landlord raised an order for the work recommended in the damp survey report.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2024 which said:
1. It acknowledged that the work to resolve the damp had taken longer than it should have. There had been delays due to its surveyors and managers reviewing the recommendations in the damp survey. There had also been delays in it approving the work needed and errors in it instructing contractors and its maintenance team.
2. It had asked its contractor to do a damp survey in February 2023 but it had not been done until 9 June 2023. The landlord had not reviewed it until September 2023.
3. It had approved the work recommended in the survey on 10 November 2023 but had not raised an order with the contractor. It had done so later and the work had been planned for 5 and 6 February 2024.
4. It had attended on 23 October 2023 to clear her gutters but she had later said that had not resolved the issue and the gutters needed realigning.
5. It had installed an extractor fan in her bathroom on 9 January 2024.
6. She had recently reported water coming into her back bedroom. It had been in touch and would monitor the outstanding work until it was done.
7. It acknowledged that the delays had been inconvenient for her and she had to chase progress. It offered £980 compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 February 2024 saying she accepted the compensation but did not consider her complaint resolved. She said the repairs had stopped without explanation and she did not know when work would resume. She told the landlord the contractor had found rotten floor joists and her floor was not safe.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman later on 13 February 2024. She said she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed repairs to resolve the damp and mould.
The landlord’s contractor replaced the rotten floor joists and repaired the floor on 19 June 2024. The resident told us that the contractor was due to return in July 2024 to treat the walls that had been replastered previously. However, other work remained outstanding and she did not know when, or if, the landlord intended to carry out further work.

Assessment and findings

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repairs needed to resolve the rising and penetrating damp. The focus of our investigation was whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and kept her informed.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks in its homes. Risks from damp and mould fall within the scope of the HHSRS. When they are reported, the landlord is required to consider if they amount to a hazard that it would be obliged to remedy.
In October 2021 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould which highlighted common failings we had seen in our casework and made recommendations for landlords to consider. The landlord had carried out a self-assessment against our recommendations prior to the events in this case and last updated its self-assessment in July 2023.
Its self-assessment says it:
1. Has a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould and will make sure it takes the right action when a report is made.
2. Has devoted more resources to triage reports and speed up visits to diagnose the causes of damp and mould.
3. Will capture reports of damp and mould and use the data to prioritise cases depending on the severity of the problem and the vulnerability of residents.
4. Is committed to keeping residents regularly informed about how it is dealing with their report.
The landlord’s repairs procedure and its website give the timescales of its response to different types of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs that pose an immediate risk to health, safety and security such as total loss of power or a serious roof leak. It will respond within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs that are not an emergency such as guttering and brickwork repairs. It will respond within 45 days.
3. Major repairs that are complex and will take longer to do. It will respond within 90 days and keep residents informed of its plans. It may do temporary repairs until it can fully resolve the problem.

Handling of rising damp affecting the resident’s living room, dining room and kitchen

We have found inadequate information management to be a common failing in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and in its complaints handling.
Regarding its handling of damp and mould, the information that the landlord provided for our investigation did not adequately evidence the reports it had received from the resident and the action it took in response. For example, the landlord sent us no records to show when the resident had first reported the damp or the action it had taken in response.
As such, it is not clear when the resident had first reported the damp that had become visible in her dining room. The absence of any evidence relating to this means the landlord has not demonstrated that it took the “right action” when it received the initial report as its self-assessment says it will.
The landlord did not send us copies of many emails that were referenced in its repair and complaint records. In some instances, the landlord’s records contained the text of the email but others did not and the references did not explain what the email had been about. For example, a note dated 28 April 2023 said it had emailed the contractor and updated the resident but gave no explanation of the email or update and the landlord did not provide us with copies. This is an example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
In her complaint of 20 October 2023, the resident had referred to a visit made to her in February 2023. She had said that the damp had been inspected and the person had told her that air bricks needed to be put into the dining room wall. In her complaint, she said that the landlord had told her later that it had no record of the visit.
There was no reference to an inspection visit during February 2023 in the evidence we saw. This is a further example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
The evidence seen did show that the landlord had raised an order, on 6 February 2023, for a specialist contractor to do a damp survey. The evidence shows that there was a 4 month delay before the survey was done, on 9 June 2023, during which time the resident had chased the landlord for updates.
The landlord did not take effective action to progress the survey. Although it chased the contractor 9 times between 28 March 2023 and 15 May 2023, the evidence shows the landlord sometimes could not get through by telephone. At other times the contractor had asked it to email. There were no records of the contractor responding to the landlord’s emails in the evidence we saw.
The landlord’s response to its failed contact attempts was to set a review date to check the position again at a later date. This did nothing to progress the survey. The landlord should have considered escalating the matter with the contractor or asking a different contractor to do the survey. We have seen no evidence that it considered either.
The evidence suggests that the contractor may not have had sufficient information to conduct the survey. It had emailed the landlord around 19 May 2023 asking for details of the age and type of property, and whether there was asbestos in it. We have not seen the landlord’s order to the contractor but it should have given the contractor all the relevant information from the start.
Specifically in relation to asbestos, the landlord has obligations for the health and safety of contractors working in its homes where asbestos may be present. It should have told its contractor about any asbestos it knew to be present and considered whether an asbestos test was needed before ordering any work.
The landlord’s failure to do this at the start meant there was a further delay between 19 May 2023 and 30 May 2023 while the landlord and contractor decided whether a test was needed before the survey could be done.
Given the delays in doing the damp survey, we would have expected the landlord to have reviewed the findings in the report promptly. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord may not have received the report that was initially sent by the contractor on 16 June 2023.
It was not until the resident chased the landlord on 6 July 2023, that the landlord asked the contractor to send it another copy. This suggests that the landlord was not actively monitoring this damp and mould case as its self-assessment says it will do.
The evidence shows that the landlord had received the damp survey report and accompanying quote by 13 July 2023. However, it did not raise orders for the work recommended until 21 December 2023 which was over 5 months later.
The evidence suggests that the landlord had sent the survey report to its escalations team on 13 July 2023. On 7 September 2023, after the resident had chased again, it had realised that team no longer existed. It then asked the contractor for a third copy of the survey report. This is a further example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
Between 20 October 2023 (when the resident complained) and 21 December 2023 multiple emails were exchanged between various officers and teams. They show that the landlord was trying to establish who had requested the damp survey and what had been done so far. This would not have been necessary if the landlord’s records had shown an accurate account of its actions.
The landlord was also trying to establish which of its repair teams was responsible for ordering the work. The evidence suggests that officers had different interpretations of the landlord’s criteria for capital works and the landlord should consider whether it needs to clarify its guidance.
The emails and the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response show that the landlord had authorised the repairs recommended in the damp survey around 17 November 2023. However, it did not send an order to the contractor until 21 December 2023. It is not clear from the evidence seen what caused this failure but it caused an avoidable delay in the repairs being done.
The resident’s complaint of 20 October 2023 and her emails of 19 November 2023 and 27 November 2023 told the landlord that the damp was getting worse and that she was worried about her health. She had referred to her COPD and angina and also the effect on her mental health. Each of the contacts should have caused the landlord to consider expediting the repairs but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it had due regard to its obligations under the HHSRS or that it considered the resident’s health vulnerabilities at any point. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising its response, as its self-assessment says it does, at any point. The landlord’s failure to consider whether the damp and mould was a hazard or consider the resident’s vulnerabilities were significant failings.
The damp survey report of 16 June 2023 had clearly stated that the landlord would need to arrange the removal of radiators and isolation of electrical sockets separately to enable the rising damp repairs to be done. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any steps to arrange this until 2 February 2024 when the complaint handler had called the contractor. This suggests that the landlord had not considered co-ordinating the enabling works when it ordered the repairs to resolve the rising damp.
The evidence shows this oversight did not cause further delay. The landlord’s complaint handler was able to arrange for the enabling works to be done on the morning that the specialist contractor was due to start work.
The specialist contractor carried out work to resolve the rising damp in the resident’s living room, dining room and kitchen between 5 February 2024 and 7 February 2024. During the work, it found that some floor joists in the dining room were rotten and the resident reported this to the landlord on 6 February 2024.
We understand that further defects can be discovered during repair work. We would have expected the landlord to have considered the safety risks and the history of damp and mould when considering its response to the rotten floor joists. The landlord should have considered addressing the rotten floor quickly, given that the resident had already been living with disrepair in her living room, dining room and kitchen for 12 months.
The landlord did not send us any repair records of its handling of the rotten floor joists from 6 February 2024. We saw emails exchanged between the landlord and a contractor dated 24 May 2024 which said that the floor repairs had been arranged for 19 June 2024. We spoke to the resident on 19 June 2024 and she confirmed that the floor had been repaired that morning.
This means that the floor was repaired over 4 months after the landlord’s contractor had found the rotten joists and the resident had reported them to the landlord. This delay was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s repair timescales. The landlord should investigate what caused such a long delay.
The delay in repairing the floor caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had been left with a hole in her floor since 6 February 2024 and felt that the floor was not safe. It was also inconvenient that her furniture had been moved around to allow for the repair works and she had been left not knowing when she could move it back.
Even after the floor repair, there remains outstanding work relating to the rising damp:
1. The resident’s skirting boards (removed during the repairs) have not been replaced.
2. The newly plastered walls have not been sealed and decorated. The resident believes this is due to be done in July 2024.
3. There is a hole in her dining room wall which had been made to expose the end of the floor joists.
Overall, the resident has been living with disrepair caused by the damp and mould for at least 16 months. It took the landlord 12 months to address the rising damp and there were excessive delays in it addressing the associated repairs needed. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the rising damp.
During its complaint process, the landlord gave the resident £930 compensation for the delays in addressing the rising damp. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress considering the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation.

Handling of penetrating damp affecting the resident’s dining room, bedroom and bathroom

It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the resident had reported the penetrating damp affecting her dining room, bedrooms and bathroom before June 2023. However, the landlord would have known about the penetrating damp from when it received the damp survey report in June or July 2023 even if it had not been aware of the issue previously.
The damp survey report of 16 June 2023 shows that it had been done by a contractor that specialised in resolving rising damp. While the report had identified both rising and penetrating damp, the specialist contractor had only recommended work to resolve the rising damp.
The report said that the penetrating damp was being caused by defects in the rainwater goods. It said that rain may have been penetrating the render at the rear of the property causing damp in a rear bedroom and had noted signs of penetrating damp in the dining room.
The report specifically stated that the landlord would need to make separate arrangements for work that was not within the scope of the specialist contractor. The landlord should have considered the findings and decided what further action it should take. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the findings in the damp survey report in relation to the penetrating damp at any point before it raised the orders to resolve the rising damp in December 2023.
This was despite the resident telling the landlord that her gutters were blocked, moss was growing on the outside wall and the chimney breast was wet in her complaint on 20 October 2023. While the landlord had raised an order to clear the gutters on 20 October 2023, that was in response to a separate report made by the resident.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised order for an extractor fan to be fitted in the resident’s bathroom on 16 November 2023. This was in response to an email from the resident on that date which said an operative attending another repair had told her that the damp and mould in the bathroom may be improved by increasing the ventilation.
At this point, the landlord was again trying to locate a copy of the damp survey report and had not yet ordered any work to resolve either of the damp issues. The landlord’s order for the extractor fan shows that it had considered the resident’s position and ordering the extractor fan was a reasonable interim repair. Given the various damp issues that the landlord was aware of, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised installing the fan.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the extractor fan was installed but an internal email dated 19 December 2023 suggested an appointment had been booked for 9 January 2024. If the fan was installed on that date, it would have been 54 days after the landlord had ordered it which was longer than its 45 day timescale for routine repairs.
By 27 November 2023 the resident was reporting that the damp in her bathroom would not be resolved until moss was cleared from the outside wall and rainwater goods repaired. She had said she thought water was leaking through the roof causing the damp on her chimney breast. She also said the damp and mould growth was getting worse and she was worried about her health, due to her COPD.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action to investigate whether the roof was leaking or raised any repairs to address the penetrating damp. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action when the resident reported that a new damp patch had appeared in a bedroom on 11 December 2023, apart from adding it to her complaint.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised any orders to resolve the penetrating damp when it ordered the work to address the rising damp on 21 December 2023. This suggests that the landlord had not considered the findings in the damp survey report relating to the penetrating damp.
On 4 January 2024, the resident had called the landlord saying she was concerned that no work had been ordered to remove the moss from the outside wall or repair the rainwater goods. The landlord had told her it would investigate and call her back but we have seen no evidence that it did so. Nor did it raise any orders to address the issues.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 February 2024 acknowledged that clearing the gutters had not resolved the damp issues, the landlord still took no action. Its response had said that its works coordinator had contacted the resident about the leak into her back bedroom. We have seen no evidence that this happened or that any work was ordered to address the penetrating damp.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s surveyor had visited on 22 February 2024 to check the progress of the rising damp repairs. The landlord had also spoken to the resident about her gutters around this time. These were opportunities for the landlord to realise that it had not addressed the penetrating damp so far. However, we have seen no evidence of any further orders raised around this time.
An internal email dated 24 May 2024 said that the landlord had “attended” to the gutter the previous day but it is not clear from the evidence we have seen what work, if any, was done. The resident told us on 19 June 2024 that no work had been carried out to her gutter or hopper head at the back of her house and that rainwater still overflows onto her wall. As such the penetrating damp and associated mould have still not been resolved.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it has fulfilled its repairing obligations in respect of the penetrating damp which it has known about since at least July 2023. Nor has it demonstrated due regard to its obligations under the HHSRS. Its failings amount to severe maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaint process. Its policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond to stage 1 complaints with 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 4 working days. This was within the timescales set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response 15 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It had notified the resident on 31 October 2023 that it had extended its response timescale. The landlord’s extension was in line with requirements of the Code at the time.
Its response of 17 November 2023 was only 1 day later than the response date it had given. This did cause some inconvenience to the resident as she had sent an email on 16 November 2023 chasing the response that had been due that day. This could have been avoided if the landlord had told her that its response would be slightly delayed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address some of the points the resident had complained about. For example, it did not address her point that the local energy advice partnership had reported the damp to the council’s environmental health team. Nor did it specifically address her point that her chimney breast wall was wet and that there was a crack under her bay window. The landlord’s failure to address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint was contrary to the Code at the time.
Further, the landlord’s response to other points was inadequate. For example, while it apologised for not giving her reassurance about her health concerns but it did not then give any reassurance or advice. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
Its response also referred to work it had done in her hall in February 2023 which the resident later pointed out had been an unrelated issue. This suggests that the landlord’s records had not given it an accurate understanding of its repair activities in the resident’s home.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response 53 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation. This timescale was contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Code at the time which both specified that a stage 2 response should be given within 20 working days.
The landlord had emailed the resident on 1 February 2024 to extend its response timescale to 14 February 2024. However, the response was already late by that time. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response, apologised and offered compensation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 February 2024 did address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. It gave an explanation of the delays in carrying out the repairs and acknowledged its failings.
It was reasonable that the landlord addressed the additional damp in her bedroom that the resident had raised after her escalation request. However, it should have explained what it planned to do to address that issue and given a timescale. Similarly, the landlord should have said what it intended to do about the gutters that she had said were misaligned but did not do so. As such, the resident was left with no certainty over what further work was planned and when it would be done.
The response also inaccurately said that it had installed an extractor fan in the bathroom as recommended by the damp survey. The damp survey report contained no reference to dampness in the bathroom or any recommendation to install an extractor fan. The landlord had ordered the fan in response to an email sent by the resident on 16 November 2023.
Overall, it took the landlord over 3 months to complete its complaint process. Its complaint process did not put things right for the resident as the follow on repairs to her floor were not done for a further 4 months and it still failed to address the penetrating damp.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord gave £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. We do not consider that amount to be sufficient redress given the other failings that we have identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman found maladministration (including severe maladministration) in several previous investigations into complaints raised with the landlord about leaks, damp and mould. In October 2023, we issued a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme. Our order required the landlord to review its policies and practices in responding to reports of leaks, damp and mould. It also required the landlord to review its staff training and information management practices. The landlord has since complied with our order and is implementing the improvements it had identified were needed.
Some of the failings identified in this case are similar to those we found in the cases previously determined. We have not made any further orders for the landlord to review its practices. However, the landlord should consider the failings identified in this case and consider whether there are any that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Rising damp affecting the resident’s living room, dining room and kitchen.
2. Penetrating damp affecting the resident’s dining room, bedroom and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A senior manager must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,965. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £1,020 for its failings in handling repairs to resolve the rising damp. This has been calculated at £50 per week for the 39 weeks of delay beyond the landlord’s 90 day response timescale. We have deducted the £930 compensation that the landlord has already paid.
  2. £240 for its failings in handling the repairs to the floor joists. This has been calculated at £20 per week for the 12 weeks of delay beyond the landlord’s 45 day response timescale.
  3. £1,505 for its failure to adequately address the penetrating damp. This has been calculated at £35 per week for the 43 weeks of delay beyond the landlord’s 90 day response timescale.
  4. £200 for its failings in handling the resident’s complaint. We have taken account of the £50 compensation that the landlord has already paid.
3. Complete an adequate survey of the resident’s home to identify the repairs needed to resolve the penetrating damp and any other disrepair issues. The survey must be carried out by a suitably qualified surveyor and must include (but not limited to) assessment of the roof, rainwater goods, rendering, any signs of damp and mould internally, and the disrepair in the resident’s dining room. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report which must set out the work needed to remedy all disrepair issues identified.
4. Update its tenancy records to reflect the health conditions (COPD and angina) that the resident had told it about.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must prepare a plan to complete the repairs identified in the survey ordered in paragraph 87.c. above. The plan must specify the work to be done and the start and completion date for each repair. The landlord must send the resident and the Ombudsman a copy of its schedule of repairs to be done.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs within 8 weeks of the date of its survey report. It should keep adequate records of how it has done all it could reasonably do in the circumstances to comply with this order.