Waterloo Housing Group Limited (201912756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912756

Waterloo Housing Group Limited

28 April 2021

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 concerns that it should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead due to the condition of the property.
2. Response to the resident’s repair requests.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s has also considered the landlord’s record keeping as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident became the tenant of the property by way of a mutual exchange in November 2019.

Summary of events

On 22 December 2019 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding the condition of the property following the mutual exchange and on becoming the tenant. In summary the resident said:
1. The property was a “health and safety concern”.
2. Since becoming the tenant she had “reported loads of repairs” including – broken shower, broken windows and handles, damp and mould, broken and dangerous door handles, “disgusting state of the kitchen” and “disgusting state of the [rear garden]”.
3. The property was draughty.
4. She was unable to exit the property through the rear door due to the state of the garden. The resident noted that a “massive tree” was blocking the door.
5. A can of petrol was left on the property’s drive next to the gas meter by the previous tenant.
6. The condition of the property was impacting on her mental health and her son’s medical conditions.
7. Despite reporting her concerns to the landlord once she had moved in it had not taken action.
8. The landlord had not acted in accordance with its mutual exchange policy by ensuring that the outgoing tenant completed the outstanding repairs before the exchange went ahead.
On 2 January 2020 the resident called the landlord to chase her complaint. The landlord informed the resident that “repairs had been logged” and the target date for its complaint response was 7 January 2020.
On 7 January 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident regarding her complaint. In summary:
1. The resident reiterated that the condition of the property was poor, including the kitchen, windows and doors. The resident stated that the condition of the garden was also poor. The resident noted that the previous tenant had left a shed and lots of rubbish in the garden which they had promised to remove before the exchange went ahead.
2. The landlord informed the resident that with a mutual exchange the incoming tenant takes over the tenancy responsibilities, and therefore they accept the property as seen.
On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord requesting to escalate her complaint to stage two. The resident said that the landlord’s position that the condition of the property was not its responsibility was unfair.
On 10 January 2020 following further contact by the resident the landlord confirmed that it had not accepted her complaint as there had been “no service failure”. The landlord explained that this was because the resident became the tenant of the property by mutual exchange and therefore agreed to accept the condition of the property as seen. In response the resident stated that she was not happy with the landlord’s position as it did not appear that the landlord had investigated her complaint. The resident repeated that the property was in a poor condition and therefore the landlord must look into her concerns “ASAP”.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord responded to the resident advising that it had investigated her complaint however it was its position that there had been no service failure. The landlord acknowledged that the property was not in the condition she expected, however explained that as she became the tenant through a mutual exchange she accepted the property’s condition as seen.
On 15 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she would wait to see what happens next as she had requested to escalate her complaint to stage two.
On 20 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had seen a rat in the garden by the tree. The landlord informed the resident that the tree and pest issue were the resident’s responsibility to deal with.
On 29 January 2020 the resident repeated her request to escalate her complaint to stage two. The resident said the landlord should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead without ensuring that the property was in a reasonable condition. The resident suggested that the landlord visit the property to view its condition.
On 31 January 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she had contacted Environmental Health about the condition of the garden, including rats, and it would be attending the property the following week.
On 4 February 2020 Environmental Health inspected the property. The report following the inspection noted eight hazards which required remedying which included damp and mould, excess cold, faulty windows, poor flooring, condition of kitchen, electrical issues, door handles, shower screen and structural collapse of shed. The Ombudsman is not clear if the landlord received a copy of the report as the report was provided to the Ombudsman by the resident only.
On 18 February 2020 Environmental Health issued the landlord with a “notice” requiring the landlord to take the following steps “for keeping the [property] free from rats or mice”:
1. Repair the damaged timber decking in the rear garden.
2. Any litter, waste or sources of harbourage for rats and mice to be removed by the landlord and disposed of.
3. Ensure that the land is kept free from rats and mice by taking all necessary steps to prevent further infestation.
4. Cause a comprehensive rat and mouse eradication and control programme to be undertaken on the land.
On 7 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to reiterate her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She would like compensation as she had not been able to use parts of the property since the start of her tenancy as a result of outstanding repair issues.
2. The property had experienced “major heat loss” due to “broken vents”, faulty windows and damaged seal around the front door. The resident stated that her heating bills were very high.
3. The kitchen was in a poor condition. The resident explained that the kitchen had damp and mould and the units were broken. The resident stated that she was unable to prepare food in the kitchen due to “woodworm coming out of [the kitchen worktops]”.
4. The back garden was in a poor condition and could not be used.
5. She could not access the back garden as the back door was broken.
6. The conduct of the Technical Officer (the TO) had been unprofessional on discussing her concerns regarding the condition of the property and garden.
7. The landlord should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead. The resident stated that the landlord should have been aware that the property was in a poor condition from mutual exchange visit.
8. The condition of the property had triggered her mental health and her son’s asthma.
On 19 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it would like to visit the property on 2 April 2020 to “assess repairs necessary”.
On 24 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response following a telephone call with the resident on 9 March 2020. In summary the landlord said:
1. Following the resident’s mutual exchange request it inspected the property. The landlord advised that no repairs were identified, however a request was made to the previous tenant to remove the shed in the garden prior. The landlord confirmed that the resident and previous tenant were present during the inspection and it was agreed for the exchange to proceed.
2. The mutual exchange was signed on 26 November 2019. The landlord confirmed that no repairs were raised at that time and therefore the resident agreed to the exchange, accepting the property in its current state.
3. The resident contacted it on 3 December 2019 raising multiple repairs which it logged. This included an “electric doorbell, security light at the front and back of the address, window handles on each window to be replaced, an electric shower not working, and a patio door handle and lock being broken”.
4. The resident chased the repairs on 6 December 2019. The landlord confirmed that during this contact the resident also advised that the previous tenant had left “rubbish, belongings and the shed” in the garden. The landlord confirmed that in response it informed the resident that it was her responsibility to remove these items.
5. The resident contacted it on 16 December 2019 stating that a tree was blocking access to the security light in the rear garden. The landlord confirmed that in response it informed the resident that it was her responsibility to address this issue.
6. The resident also raised additional repairs on 16 December 2019 including back security light, faulty windows, and broken air vents and noted that the repairs she had previously reported were outstanding.
7. On 18 February 2020 it received an enforcement notice from Environmental Health following a referral from the resident. The landlord confirmed that in response it took steps to remove the shed, clear the garden and investigate rats. The landlord confirmed that this was completed between 2 and 5 March 2020.
8. On 20 March 2020 it visited the property and following the visit it raised additional repairs including mould, draughts, water damage to kitchen worktop, crack in shower and missing toilet seat.
9. As it gave correct advice regarding repair responsibilities following a mutual exchange the matter was not raised as a formal complaint in December 2019.
10. The resident had confirmed during the call that most repair jobs were still outstanding and it was not clear when they would be completed.
11. The TO was due to visit the property on 2 April 2020 to assess the repairs needed in the property however due to the Covid-19 pandemic this had been delayed.
12. The TO had been “very proactive” in trying to resolve the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property. The landlord noted that the resident did not want the TO involved in her case anymore however it was its position that they were best placed to resolve the present issues. The landlord confirmed that the TO would visit the property with another member of staff when completing the inspection.
The landlord concluded by confirming that:
1. It had taken an unsatisfactory amount of time to fix the issues raised by the resident. The landlord confirmed that as soon as the TO was able to attend the property it would carry out an inspection to find out what repairs were needed.
2. It had followed its mutual exchange procedure when the property was first exchanged.
3. While it had taken action on receipt of the notice from Environmental Health it was sorry that the resident had to contact it in order for the garden issue to be resolved.
4. It would like to offer £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of the issues raised within her complaint.
On 26 and 28 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to request to escalate her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead due to the condition of the property.
2. The landlord should have identified the poor condition of the property during the inspection prior to the exchange taking place.
3. She began raising concerns regarding the condition of the property on 3 December 2019 and made a complaint about the same on 22 December 2019.
4. The landlord had refused to respond to her complaint in December 2019 as it believed that there was no service failure as she had accepted the property in its current condition.
5. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, including how long the repairs had been outstanding, loss of use of garden, loss of use of kitchen and the impact on her heating bills.
6. Covid-19 would delay the repairs needed further.
On 31 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her escalation request. The landlord said that it was unable to escalate the complaint at that time because it needed to visit the property to determine the outstanding repairs first, which it was currently unable to do due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 12 April 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. The resident stated that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord was refusing to escalate her complaint. The resident suggested that the landlord could respond to her complaint without undertaking a visit as it already had information detailing its response to her repair requests since she became the tenant of the property.
On 20 April 2020 the landlord responded to the resident confirming that it was not able to escalate the complaint until a visit was undertaken to fully assessed the issues raised. The landlord said this was “essential to [the resident’s] complaint that the property [she] exchanged to was in poor condition”.
On 28 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the status of her complaint, following notification from the Ombudsman that she had referred her complaint to this Service for assistance. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was unable to escalate the complaint until it had inspected the property. The landlord confirmed that the inspection would be completed when its services resumed.
2. The purpose of the review was to assess the case and to establish if the resident’s claims were justified regarding the condition of the property at the point of the mutual exchange.
3. It would review the amount of compensation as part of the review.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord provided its final response following a telephone call with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. During the call the resident confirmed that she remained unhappy with the following aspects of her complaint:
  1. The condition of the property after the completion of the mutual exchange.
  2. The large number of repairs required to the property following the commencement of her tenancy.
  3. She did not feel that the landlord had taken her concerns regarding the condition of the property seriously.
2. It was a joint decision between the resident and the previous tenant to exchange properties. The landlord noted that the resident viewed the property and agreed to accept it in its current condition. The landlord said that it had enclosed a copy of the form which the resident had signed.
3. While it was aware that one of the conditions of the exchange was for the previous tenant to remove the shed from the garden, which did not happen, it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure at the viewing stage that she was happy with the decorative condition of the property.
4. It could find no evidence that it should have refused to allow the exchange to proceed due to repairs.
5. It had reviewed the photographs that the resident had provided of the property at the start of her tenancy. The landlord stated that the photographs showed that some decoration and cleaning was required which was a tenant’s responsibility.
6. The resident had raised 47 repairs since the start of her tenancy. The landlord noted that this was “above the average number of repairs that [it] would normally expect to be ordered in a relatively short period of time”.
7. There was “some confusion” over which repairs it would complete, including in respect of the removal of the shed.
8. Following the resident’s referral to Environmental Health it removed the shed.
9. The “progress of the remedial works” was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
10. It had recently inspected the property and “further works including a programmed replacement of [the] existing kitchen [had] now been ordered”.
11. Other than the confusion over removal of the garden shed “and responsibility for a small number of repairs” it could find no evidence that it had not taken the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property seriously.
The landlord concluded by confirming:
1. That it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as there was some confusion at the beginning of her tenancy with regard to what repairs it needed to carry out.
2. It was sorry that the resident felt it necessary to approach Environmental Health to have the shed removed.
3. It would like to increase its offer of compensation to £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the delay in having the remedial work carried out in a timely manner caused.
As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response she referred the matter to this Service for adjudication.
On receipt of the complaint the Ombudsman asked the resident if she would like to participate in mediation to resolve the complaint. The resident advised that in order to resolve her complaint she would like the landlord to take the following actions:
1. Complete the outstanding repairs, namely:
  1. The three internal doors
  2. Shower screen
2. Increase its offer of compensation to £1600.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s proposal advising:
1. It was able to increase its offer of compensation to £300. The landlord explained that its new offer was reasonable as it had followed its mutual exchange policy but it had failed to carry out the repairs in a timely manner. The landlord noted that some of the delays were due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
2. The internal doors were replaced on 2 December 2020.
3. The shower screen was due to be repaired on 8 February 2021.
The resident confirmed that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s revised offer of compensation. In later correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident confirmed there were still outstanding repairs which the landlord had not addressed including shower screen, kitchen floor and plaster work.

Assessment and findings

The resident has suggested that as a result of the condition of the property and the landlord’s inaction, her and her son’s health conditions worsened. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the condition of the property and the deterioration of their health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead due to the condition of the property

The landlord’s policy on mutual exchanges sets out:
1. When a tenant finds someone to mutual exchange with both parties accept responsibility for the exchange property in its existing condition.
2. The parties should visit the property before they agree to an exchange and carry out a thorough inspection of the property to ensure that they are satisfied with its condition.
The Ombudsman notes that the mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate the voids inspection which is used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to relet following the end of a tenancy by notice rather than exchange.
On 6 November 2019 the resident, outgoing tenant and landlord singed the mutual exchange property inspection form. The form noted that the outgoing tenant “agreed to remove all items in shed and dismantle it”. The form further stated that the outgoing tenant agreed to “make all the agreed outstanding tenant repairs” and failure to do so could result in the refusal of the mutual exchange. The Ombudsman notes that the form did not document any other repair issues.
On 26 November 2019 the resident signed the letter of assignment for the mutual exchange. The document set out that the resident had inspected the property and understood that she accepted it in its present state of decoration and repair. Therefore, if the resident was not satisfied with the condition of the property on 26 November 2019, as presented by the outgoing tenant, she did not have to accept the tenancy. This includes the status of the shed.
As the mutual exchange inspection form did not document any repair issues, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position that it had no evidence to refuse to allow the mutual exchange to proceed due to repair issues was reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests

Following a mutual exchange a landlord is responsible for completing repairs that it is required to fulfil to meet its repairing obligations as a landlord. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to respond to the resident’s repair requests following the mutual exchange and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility under its repair policy and the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has provided its repair records for the property. The records demonstrate that on becoming the tenant the resident immediately began raising repair issues with the property and continued to do so throughout the period under investigation, a period of approximately nine months.
The repairs records show that the repairs service the landlord provided between December 2019 and 24 March 2020, the date of the landlord’s stage one response, was unsatisfactory. The records show that the during this time the landlord failed to respond to many of the repair requests on notification and therefore many were outstanding for a protracted period of time without explanation. This included electric doorbell, security light front and back, window handles, patio door and draughts. The landlord reports that it visited the property on 20 March 2020 and identified repairs, however the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has been unable to provide a record of the visit and its findings. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to support is actions. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s visit on 20 March 2020 was the first time it attended the property with the intention of discussing the resident’s concerns, which was approximately four months after she made her complaint about its repairs service.
During this period EHT inspected the property on 4 February 2020. While the Ombudsman is not clear if the report form EHT was provided to the landlord following its visit, the Ombudsman notes that the report detailed multiple repair issues, including eight hazards. This therefore indicates to the Ombudsman that the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property were valid and therefore a proactive response was required from the landlord to investigate and address the issues, which it did not do.
The Ombudsman is pleased that the landlord did however promptly respond to the enforcement notice issued by EHT on 18 February 2020 in relation to the garden as this was an action it was required to complete on the direction of the local authority. The landlord apologised to the resident that it required a referral in order for it to respond to her concerns in this regard which was appropriate.
In response to the complaint, once it accepted it under its complaint procedure, the landlord arranged to inspect the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was an appropriate course of action to determine the condition of the property and what repairs the landlord was responsible for. The Ombudsman notes that the inspection was originally scheduled for 2 April 2020 however was postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman accepts that the pandemic has disrupted the normal services that a landlord has been able to provide, including due to staff resources and Government restrictions.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord completed the inspection in summer 2020. While it was appropriate that the landlord did inspect the property, the Ombudsman has not been able to draw any conclusions from the inspection as the landlord has been unable to provide any record of the inspection or report detailing the findings. This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the repair service the landlord provided the resident and to determine whether all repair issues have been addressed. The Ombudsman notes that it is the resident’s position that all repairs have not been completed.
The landlord acknowledged during the complaint procedure that its repairs service was not always satisfactory as the time to complete some repairs was protracted and the resident was required to contact Environmental Health for assistance with the garden.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to put things right. In this case the landlord has awarded £300 compensation.
While the Ombudsman agrees the landlord’s assessment that its repairs service was not always satisfactory the Ombudsman is not satisfied regarding the level of redress it awarded. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer is not proportionate to the circumstances of the case, considering that the resident was repeatedly raising repair issues regarding the property, the extent of the repair issues reported, which EHT believed warranted eight hazards, and its failure to respond promptly over a considerable period of time. This also takes into account that the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that the matter has been sufficiently concluded following the inspection in summer 2020.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint dated 22 December 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to refuse to respond to the complaint under its complaint procedure in January 2020 was unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity. As the resident had complained about the landlord’s response to her repair requests the landlord should have accepted the complaint to determine if its response to her repair requests were in line with its repairs policy or not. Where the landlord identified any shortfalls in its delivery of its repairs service it could have taken steps to put things right, such as scheduling repairs. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord excluded the complaint on the grounds that the resident accepted the condition of the property as she had become the tenant by way of a mutual exchange, as while this was the case, the mutual exchange did not negate the landlord’s repair obligations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision not to progress the resident’s complaint fettered its own discretion as it prevented it from considering the specific issues which the resident had raised.
The Ombudsman is further displeased that despite the resident continuing to raise concerns regarding the landlord’s repair response from January 2020 and requesting a formal response under its complaint procedure, the landlord did not do so until end of March 2020. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage possible. The Ombudsman notes that within its complaint response dated 24 March 2020 the landlord acknowledged that its handling of repairs had been below standard, thus highlighting that had it accepted the complaint earlier it may have been able to put things right sooner for the resident. Whilst the landlord could not reasonably have foreseen the impact of the pandemic on its service delivery, it is relevant that the landlord’s failure here meant that the issues with the property condition might have been resolved prior to this unforeseen event. Instead, the resident was left living in a lockdown situation with the multiple repair issues she had reported in a timely manner.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s final response was provided approximately six months after she requested to escalate her complaint. While the Ombudsman understands why the landlord wished to inspect the property prior to providing its final response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion when it became clear that it could not do so promptly due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it would have been appropriate for it to have proceeded to issue its final response setting out its commitment to inspect the property and to complete repairs identified when it was safe to do so and to also address her other concerns. This would have provided reassurances to the resident on a way forward. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not rely on the inspection in providing its final response.

The landlord’s record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair appointments and inspections so that it can satisfy itself and a resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
As set out above in the preceding sections, the landlord has not kept a record of its visit to the property in March 2020 or the inspection in summer 2020. This is unsatisfactory as it has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the repair service the landlord provided the resident and to determine whether all repair issues have been addressed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns that it should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead due to the condition of the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s repair requests.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
4. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

As the mutual exchange inspection form, which was signed by the resident, did not document any repair issues the landlord’s position that it had no evidence to refuse to allow the mutual exchange to proceed due to repair issues was reasonable.
While the landlord acknowledged that the repairs service which it provided to the resident was not always satisfactory and therefore awarded £300 compensation it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the award does not fully reflect that the resident was repeatedly raising repair issues regarding the property, the extent of the repair issues reported and its failure to respond promptly over a considerable period of time. This also takes into account that the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that the matter has been sufficiently concluded following the inspection in summer 2020.
The landlord’s decision to refuse to respond to the complaint under its complaint procedure in January 2020 was unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity. As the resident had complained about the landlord’s response to her repair requests the landlord should have accepted the complaint to determine if its response to her repair requests were in line with its repairs policy or not.
Despite the resident continuing to raise concerns regarding the landlord’s repair response from January 2020 and requesting a formal response under its complaint procedure, the landlord did not do so until March 2020. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage possible.
The landlord’s decision to significantly delay its final response was unsatisfactory. When it became clear that the landlord was unable to schedule the inspection within a reasonable amount of time it would have been appropriate for it to have proceeded to issue its final response to provide reassurances to the resident on a way forward.
The landlord’s record keeping was unsatisfactory as it has not kept a record of its visit to the property in March 2020 or the inspection in summer 2020. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, so that it can satisfy itself that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should award the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. £500 in respect of the repairs service the landlord provided. This sum is not in addition to the £300 already awarded by the landlord.
2. £200 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £100 in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord should arrange to inspect the property within four weeks of the date of this report to identify any repairs which it is responsible for completing under the tenancy agreement. Following the inspection the landlord should write to the resident within two weeks setting out a plan to address any repairs which are identified. The landlord may wish to request a copy of the report from EHT following its inspection on 4 February 2020 to inform its own inspection of the property.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that its responds to complaints in line with best practice. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that a landlord’s approach to complaints is clear simple and accessible and ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly.
The landlord should review its record keeping ensuring that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that it has met its repairing obligations.