Wandle Housing Association Limited (202217253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217253

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report that she could not close her balcony door.
2. Response to the resident’s report that the kitchen window had no safety catch and her son’s bedroom window did not lock.
3. Handling of the complaint.
This report also considers the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 2-bed fourth floor flat, since August 2017. She lives with her son who at the time of the issues of complaint was 10 years old. The resident has advised this Service that her son has autism. The evidence shows she has made the landlord aware of this.
The resident first reported issues with her balcony doors in July 2022. She told the landlord that they had always been difficult to open and close but that they would not close at all anymore.
On 3 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. She was unhappy because:
1. She had been reporting since 2019 that the bathroom extractor fan did not work.
2. She could not close the balcony door. This was an emergency repair according to the landlord’s policy but no one attended until 10 August 2022.
3. The property was not secure. While the flat was on the fourth floor, young people regularly climbed up the balconies to access flats above.
4. Her new kitchen window had no safety catch.
5. The window in her son’s bedroom did not lock.
6. It had not responded to her reports of noise nuisance.
On 10 February 2023, following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 10 February 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2023. It said:
1. It had inspected the balcony door in August 2022 as it was difficult to open and close. Its operative had noted that a subcontractor needed to attend and raised a job for this.
2. The subcontractor attended on 5 January 2023 and provided a quote to replace the patio doors and the bedroom window. It booked to carry out the works on 22 February 2023.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 February 2023. She said she remained unhappy because:
1. The issue was not that the balcony door was difficult to open and close. It would not close and had remained open since July 2022. This had caused her property to be cold and for her to be concerned for the safety of herself and her son.
2. Rainwater was coming into the property which had caused damage.
3. A timeline of events was not a satisfactory response. There was no apology for the delay or offer of compensation.
4. It had not acknowledged the noise nuisance issues she raised in her complaint.
On 17 April 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 2 escalation. The landlord acknowledged escalation request on 17 April 2023. It apologised and said it had missed the resident’s initial request.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2023. It said:
1. It had not yet completed works to replace the balcony doors and bedroom window.
2. Its contractor had attended on 24 May 2023 to complete the works but scaffolding needed erecting before works could commence. It acknowledged the delays had caused “significant inconvenience and distress”. It had also caused damage to the balcony door sill. It apologised for this.
3. It had attempted to resolve the resident’s issues when raised in October 2022 but had failed to follow up and ensure that the works were satisfactory.
4. It would erect scaffolding by 16 June 2023.
5. It would inspect the works on completion and would arrange for the contractor to repair the door sill.
6. It offered her £500 compensation comprising:
  1. £250 for its failure to complete the works within timescale.
  2. £250 for the inconvenience, distress, and impact of the delays.
In August 2023 the landlord’s contractor advised it had completed the replacement of the balcony door and bedroom window. The landlord inspected the works and found they were a poor standard. The balcony door mechanism did not work properly, there were no safety restrictors on the bedroom window, and waste had been left on site.
In response to a request for further information the landlord has told this Service that the repairs are now complete. The resident however has advised that while the balcony door now closes there are gaps around the frame. She says that the door is not weatherproof and there are severe draughts which has increased the cost of heating the property. The resident states that there are ongoing major works to the outside of the building and that the landlord is due to replace the windows and balcony doors during this work. She has provided a copy of the landlord’s planning application to the local authority which includes the replacement of the windows and balcony doors.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete emergency works within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It defines emergency repairs as those “necessary to avoid danger to occupants” and says this includes “insecure external doors or windows”.
The repair policy states that major works are “non-emergency routine repairs…and will likely be deemed either extensive or improvement to the existing provision, they are not standard repairs”.
Building Regulations 2010 guidance states “Where a person may fall through a window above ground floor level, provide suitable opening limiters, to restrain the window sufficiently to prevent such falls or guarding”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that within her original complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). She also complained that her bathroom extractor fan had been broken since 2019. The landlord did not respond to these aspects of the complaint. It should reasonably have done so, or raised a new and separate complaint. We have considered its failure to respond to these issues within the complaint handling assessment below.
Given the absence of information relating to these reports, we cannot investigate the resident’s concerns as part of this complaint. However, the resident may refer her concerns to us as a new complaint once the matter has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Record keeping

It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s reports of repairs required to her balcony door and kitchen window and bedroom windows.
During our investigation we have found inadequacies in the records provided by the landlord. We have identified similar issues in recent cases involving the landlord.
The repair records provided by the landlord do not indicate when it raised or completed the repairs. It should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident and ultimately the Ombudsman that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. In this case the landlord’s records are insufficient to do so.
We note that because of the incomplete information provided this Service has had to invest considerable time cross-referencing communications between the landlord, resident and contractor to establish an accurate timeline.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has affected our investigation into its handling of the substantive issues of complaint. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
We have found similar record keeping failings in other recent cases and have previously made an order in relation to addressing this. As an order has been made, we have not repeated the order in this case. We will however monitor the landlord’s compliance.

Response to the resident’s report that she could not close her balcony door.

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 July 2022 and reported that she was unable to close her balcony door. She has provided evidence that shows the gap in the door was approximately 1 and a half inches wide. As the resident was reporting that the door was insecure, the landlord should reasonably have treated this as an emergency repair in line with its policy and attended within 24 hours.
Instead, the landlord responded 2 days later and said it had raised a repair and would attend in 16 days’ time on 10 August 2022. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and was therefore unreasonable.
When it attended on 10 August 2022 the contractor reported that the door was “rotten”. It said it was “unrepairable” and “unable to slide either way”. The contractor recommended that the door be replaced.
There is no evidence that the landlord implemented any interim measures to make the property secure and weather tight while it effected a permanent repair. It is unknown whether an interim repair was possible. However, that the landlord did not explore this further – or confirm to the resident that nothing could be done in the intervening period – was inappropriate.
On 3 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint and advised that she was still waiting for a new balcony door and that the property was insecure. At this time she made the landlord aware of security concerns due to young people climbing up the balconies. She also stressed that her son was experiencing anxiety due to the issues with the property.
The landlord replied on 12 October 2022 and said it had raised follow-on repairs for the balcony door and would contact her with an appointment. Later that day it advised her that it had referred the work to the major works team. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on the status of the repair. However, we have not seen that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the property or the impact this was having on her son. This was inappropriate.
It took the landlord 2 months and a complaint from the resident to raise the follow-on repairs that she reported in August 2022. The reason for this delay is unclear but that it took so long was unreasonable.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category 1 under the HHSRS, be in a reasonable state of repair, and provide reasonable thermal comfort.
Entry by intruders is potential hazard under the HHSRS. The HHSRS recognises that the threat of an unauthorised entry can cause health effects such as mental harm, stress, anguish and physical injuries. In this case the property was not secure from entry by intruders. The balcony door could not close and the resident had highlighted that people regularly climbed up the balconies.
Nor did the property provide reasonable thermal comfort, a requirement of the Decent Homes Standard. Excess cold is a defined hazard under the HHSRS. The resident reported that the property was cold and expensive to heat.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took any actions to satisfy itself that it was meeting its statutory obligations in relation to the repair, thermal comfort, and security of the property. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2022 and said that it had given her no timeframe for when it would complete the work. She said its policy defined the works was an emergency, not major works.
While we acknowledge the resident’s comments it is unlikely that reclassifying the job would have resulted in the replacement door being installed any quicker. This is because a new door would still have needed to be manufactured. In this case the failing was that the landlord failed to make the door safe and failed to raise works to replace the door within a reasonable timeframe.
On 18 December 2022 the resident again reported that her balcony door remained open. She said that it had been open since July 2022 and that rain and snow were entering the property and her home was cold. The resident said that her heating costs had increased and she had safety concerns as she lived on the fourth floor and had a child. She attached a video showing water entering the property and causing damage to the property and her belongings. The resident asked the landlord to fix the door or move her to a safe property.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request to consider moving her to another property. While this Service cannot determine whether such a move was warranted, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the request. The resident has reported that the issues with the door are yet to be resolved. We have therefore recommended that the landlord considers whether there is a need for the resident to be decanted when it visits the property to conduct a further inspection.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 22 December 2022. The records state that the operative was able to close the door “slightly” but that it remained open. The records show that the contractor installed a “rubber weather strip” to keep water out. This was a reasonable step to take, but it is unclear why this was not done sooner prior to the winter months. The resident has advised that this was unsuccessful and that draughts and rain still entered the property. We would reasonably have expected the landlord to carry out checks to satisfy itself that the interim repair had been effective. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord has considered the resident’s increased energy bills. As her property was not weather tight for over a year, this may have increased the costs the resident incurred heating her property. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs were unavoidable. It therefore should reasonably have considered reimbursing the resident for the increase in her energy bills. We have ordered it to consider reimbursing the resident accordingly now, upon provision of satisfactory evidence.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 December 2022 and again on 30 December 2022 stating that it had asked its major works team for an update. We have not seen that it did provide an update to the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor had attended on 5 January 2023 to provide a quote to replace the door. It also said it had booked an appointment for 22 February 2023. There is no mention of these appointments in the landlord’s repair records.
There is a gap in both the repair logs and email communication records between December 2022 and May 2023. It is unclear whether this is due to record keeping issues or a lack of action by the landlord. Either way, this was unreasonable.
Emails between the landlord and its contractor show that the contractor was due to attend to replace the door on 24 May 2023 but could not do so as scaffolding was required. Again, there is no record of this within the landlord’s repair logs.
The landlord’s communications show that there were delays to erecting the scaffolding due to a lack of access from another resident. While unfortunate we accept that this was beyond the landlord’s control. The scaffolding was erected on 17 July 2023.
Emails show that the contractor fitted a new balcony door on 26 July 2023 but that the mechanism was faulty. It said it would fit a new mechanism the following week. The contractor attended the following week to complete works to the window but did not fit a new door mechanism.
The landlord contacted its contractor on 3 August 2023 and advised that the works completed to the door was “shocking” and “poorly done”. It asked how it was going to rectify the issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to relay this to the contractor and ask it to resolve the matter. The contractor said it had ordered the required parts and would prioritise completing the work. We note that the landlord’s email to its contractor was strongly worded. This was reasonable and proportionate considering the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The contractor returned on 25 August 2023 but was unable to complete the work as it determined it needed to replace the sill and blockwork below the door. This required it to remove and refit the door. It did so on 6 September 2023. While it is unclear why the contractor did not identify this sooner, the delay on this occasion was not attributable to the landlord.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the works on 12 September 2023. It told the contractor the balcony door installation was unsatisfactory. It said the door was not aligned and was unable to lock at the bottom. It also advised that the contractor had caused damage to the walls and that its own operatives would address this.
The contractor adjusted the door hinge mechanism on 19 September 2023 and advised the landlord the door was left in full working order. The resident has advised that this is not the case. She stated that during this visit the contractor removed a “strip” from the centre of the balcony doors and said it would return. She says that she advised the landlord of this and that she continued to experience draughts from the door.
The landlord has stated that it resolved all repairs in September 2023. Photographs taken by the resident at the time of this investigation do not support this account. They show a gap under the balcony door frame, damage to the walls around the door, and that the sill has is damaged and mouldy due to water ingress.
Where the reports of the parties differ, this Service would usually rely on evidence from repair logs. In this case we have been unable to do so due the landlord providing partial and insufficient records.
The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the delays to repairs to the balcony and windows. It is unclear what proportion of this was specifically for the balcony door repair.
The resident experienced 14 months in her property where she was unable to close the balcony door. We accept that the manufacture of a new door would require some time. The evidence however shows that the landlord did not raise works in a timely manner and there were long periods where there is no evidence that it took any action until prompted by the resident.
The resident had concerns about the security of the property and the safety of her child. The property was not protected from the elements during rain, snow, and summer heat. We also note the landlord has not repaired the balcony door to a satisfactory standard. We do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation and this is discussed further in the complaint handling assessment.
Overall, the landlord failed to repair the balcony door within a reasonable period. It failed to implement any interim measures to make the property secure and weather tight until December 2022 and then failed to satisfy itself of their effectiveness. This had a severe impact on the resident and her concerns regarding the safety of herself and her child were reasonable. While the repair had been contracted out, the landlord remained ultimately responsible for ensuring it was completed and to a reasonable standard. The evidence shows that, contrary to the update provided by the landlord, the resident continues to experience issues with the balcony door. We therefore find severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that her balcony door was insecure and could not close.

Response to the resident’s reports that the kitchen window had no safety catch and her son’s bedroom window did not lock.

It is not clear from the information provided by the landlord when the resident first raised concerns regarding the kitchen and bedroom windows. As previously discussed, the repair logs provided do not detail when repairs were reported, when works were raised, or when repairs were completed. We have therefore based our assessment on email correspondence between the resident, landlord, and contractor.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord attended to repair the kitchen window as the resident had reported that it would not open. It noted that it had installed the window in June 2021 but the opener was in the wrong place and a restrictor needed to be installed.
The evidence shows that a contractor attended on 29 July 2022 and replaced the handle on the bedroom window.
On 3 October 2022 the resident told the landlord in her complaint that the window in her son’s bedroom did not lock and the kitchen window needed a restrictor. In its response the landlord said it would repair both windows on 24 October 2022.
The landlord’s repair policy states that repairs “necessary to avoid danger to occupants” are classed as emergency repairs. In this case, as the resident raised concerns about the safety of her child, it should reasonably have considered these to be emergency repairs.
The records show that the contractor cancelled the appointment on 24 October 2022 as it did not have the required materials. It re-booked the appointment for 26 October 2022 however the operative reported he had been unable to complete the repair.
The resident has stated that during this appointment the contractor screwed shut her son’s bedroom window and installed a safety catch to the kitchen window. We have been unable to corroborate this due to inadequacies in the landlord’s record keeping.
In late December 2022 the resident advised the landlord the window in her son’s bedroom had been “screwed shut with no handle”. She said the landlord had not updated her about when it would resolve this.
The resident has advised that between December 2022 and July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended on 4 occasions to measure for a replacement window for her son’s bedroom. We have again been unable to corroborate this due to poor record keeping by the landlord.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and asked why she had refused to allow its contractor to replace her son’s bedroom window. The resident advised that she had not done as such. She said the contractor had attended the day before and told her it would repair rather than replace the bedroom window. She said the contractor asked her to sign a document saying she was happy for it to do this but she had refused to do so. The evidence shows the landlord addressed this issue with the contractor who apologised and said it had dismissed the operative. That the landlord addressed the operative’s behaviour with the contractor promptly and strongly was positive.
The records show the contractor fitted a new window to the resident’s son’s bedroom on 1 August 2023. She was frustrated however as they had not fitted any safety catches. She attached photographs showing how wide the window opened and said that for safety reasons she was having to keep the window locked. She said she was therefore no better off than before it was replaced.
The landlord was aware that the resident’s son was experiencing anxiety. He had been diagnosed with autism and the resident has explained that this meant he was particularly distressed by the repair issues. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the additional vulnerabilities of the household in this case.
The resident has stated that the contractor installed restrictors to her son’s bedroom window on 19 September 2023. This is not evidenced within the records provided by the landlord which do not show that restrictors were installed at all. The landlord should reasonably have ensure that a record of this work was made. That it did not is a further example of poor record keeping.
Overall, the landlord failed to carry out repairs to the kitchen and bedroom window appropriately. It should reasonably have responded to the repairs as an emergency due to the safety concerns the resident raised in relation to her son. The window in the resident’s son’s bedroom stayed screwed shut for 10 months. When the landlord replaced the window, the resident remained unable to open it for a further 7 weeks during summer as there was no restrictor in place. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows.

Handling of the complaint.

The resident made a formal complaint on 3 October 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord received this but failed to provide a formal response at this time. This was a failure to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code) and its own policy.
This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 10 February 2023. The landlord immediately acknowledged the complaint and provided its stage 1 response within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its policy. While this was appropriate, it should not have been necessary for the resident to seek assistance from our Service for the landlord to respond to her complaint.
Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined the resident’s concerns and the actions it had taken. It said its contractor would complete the required works and provided an appointment.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day that she received the stage 1 response. She correctly pointed out that the landlord’s response had not been satisfactory and had in fact been a “timeline of events”.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not contain the components identified by the Code as essential elements in a complaint response. It did not detail:
1. The outcome of the complaint and the reasons for the outcome.
2. Details of any remedy to put things right.
3. Details of outstanding actions.
We note that the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint of October 2022, nor did it apologise for this. This was a failing.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the delays in resolving the resident’s repairs and the impact of these delays. It therefore did not take any steps to put things right. This was a further failing.
The resident advised the landlord that it had not addressed the noise nuisance issues that she had described in her original complaint. She attached a copy of the original complaint to her stage 2 escalation request. While the resident did not highlight this, we note that the landlord also failed to address the concerns she raised at stage 1 about repairs to her extractor fan.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. It failed to do so in this case and this was a failing.
The evidence shows that the landlord received the resident’s complaint escalation but failed to formally acknowledge or respond to it until prompted by this Service 2 months later. As previously stated, the resident should not have to contact this Service to obtain a response to her complaint. That the landlord failed to learn from its previous mistake was a failing.
After acknowledging the stage 2 complaint it took the landlord 32 working days to respond. This exceeds the timeframes within the Code and its policy. The landlord did not request an extension to these timeframes or acknowledge or apologise for the complaint handling delay in its stage 2 response. This was a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged and apologised for the delays in resolving the issues with the resident’s bedroom window and balcony door. It also accepted the impact these failings had had on the resident. It was correct that it did so.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation for the repair delays. It is unclear how the landlord calculated this figure.
The landlord’s complaints policy includes a section on paying financial compensation to put things right. However, it does not provide any details about what factors it would consider when calculating compensation awards. The policy states that it has a related document named “Compensation Guidelines.” The Ombudsman asked the landlord for this, but it confirmed that it does not have such a document. It is therefore unclear why its policy refers to a document which it has said does not exist.
As previously discussed, we do not consider that the compensation the landlord offered to the resident provides sufficient redress for the detriment she has experienced. We have therefore ordered that it pay further compensation. The amount ordered is explained below.
The resident has paid approximately £557 per month (taking account of some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the events of this investigation.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the 14 months that the resident’s enjoyment of the living room has been affected by being unable to close the balcony door. The room was cold, and she had reasonable safety concerns. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,170 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 15% of the total rent during the period in question.
The landlord is ordered to pay a further £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of window repairs. The resident was unable to open her son’s bedroom window for 11 months and had to lock the window for a further 2 weeks as there was no safety latch installed to the new window. This caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord is also ordered to pay £250 in relation to the time and trouble caused by its poor handling of the complaint.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Respond to the resident’s original complaint within a reasonable timeframe.
2. Include within its stage 1 response the components identified by the Code as essential elements in a complaint response.
3. Acknowledge and apologise for delays in its complaint handling.
4. Address all the issues of complaint raised by the resident.
5. Satisfactorily resolve the repair issues raised in the complaint.
6. Provide reasonable redress for its failings.
We therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that she could not close her balcony door.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the kitchen window had no safety catch and her son’s bedroom window did not lock.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,720 which comprises:
  1. £1,170 in relation to reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that she could not close her balcony door.
  2. £300 in relation to distress, inconvenience, time and trouble due to its response to the resident’s reports that the kitchen window had no safety catch and her son’s bedroom window did not lock.
  3. £250 in relation to time and trouble due to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

This amount includes the £500 offered to the resident in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This should be deducted from the amount awarded if already paid.

The landlord must arrange a mutually convenient appointment to carry out an inspection of the balcony doors. It should consider what interim repairs may be needed to prevent further draughts and water ingress until planned works to the whole building are completed. The landlord should provide a report from this inspection to this Service.

On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased usage) the landlord to reimburse the resident for the increased cost of heating the property due to delays in completing the balcony door repair. In doing so the landlord should:
1. demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
2. agree a compensation amount, if an increase in expenditure has been evidenced, within 2 weeks of the resident providing evidence.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should respond to the resident’s enquiry regarding a decant to another property until works to her property are completed.