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

Wolverhampton City Council (202401959)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401959

Wolverhampton City Council

15 November 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of pests and fly-tipping, and associated repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a flat within a low-rise block of 4 properties. The landlord manages the estate.
  2. The resident initially reported fly-tipping and holes in her loft which were allowing pests to enter in January 2023. 2 visits took place to inspect and fill holes in the loft. On 25 January 2023, an operative found no holes but advised her to contact pest control. On 22 February 2023, an operative reported filling holes. The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 29 March 2023 as the noise from the pests in her loft was impacting her sleep. She said operatives attended twice but had they not carried out work and she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues.
  3. Between March and June 2023:
    1. The resident continued to report fly-tipping by her neighbours and that previously reported items were still present. The landlord told her on 31 March 2023 that it would speak to the neighbours regarding the waste and arrange a further clearance. She reported further fly-tipping on 22 May 2023.
    2. The landlord’s pest control contractor began treatment of the loft on 5 April 2023 and the landlord informed the resident that it would raise repairs for broken guttering and a drain as she had reported these could be entry points. An operative inspected and resolved issues related to the guttering on 11 April 2023, however, she continued to report that it had not addressed the drain. It completed an inspection on 17 April 2023, and found it needed to complete further repairs to the brickwork.
    3. The landlord raised a job to brick around the gulley drain and fill holes in the loft, scheduled for 2 May 2023. However, the resident called to chase the appointment, and the landlord established that it had booked a plasterer, not a bricklayer. It rebooked the appointment.
    4. On 3 May 2023, operatives attended a work order following the resident’s reports that there were gaps under her sink. The job notes indicate that it needed to completed follow-on works to remove the sink unit, bath panel, and bathroom boxing to look for mouse holes and fill these as necessary.
    5. On 5 May 2023, an operative attended to fill holes. They reported that the loft wall was fire board, and it was broken between the properties. Operatives also attended on 8 and 9 June 2023 in relation to work to fill holes in the kitchen, bathroom, and loft, and complete works to the manhole/drain.
  4. On 11 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to move her complaint to the next stage. She explained that:
    1. An operative had confirmed that a kitchen unit needed removing to fill gaps where mice could enter. She chased this up and it told her it had not logged the work. 2 operatives attended on 9 June 2023 and said they could not complete work as her energy meters and pipes were where the holes were. She was unhappy that she had stayed home for no repairs.
    2. Another operative had attended 3 times for her loft. They had said they filled holes and that there was a board missing which allowed mice to access her property from the neighbouring loft. They could not complete the work as they were a bricklayer. The operatives attended again to complete work to fill holes, which they had already completed. She chased the work to repair the board between the properties and the landlord instructed 2 plasterers.
    3. On 9 June 2023, 3 operatives attended and did not know what work they were due to complete. They then advised that a member of the fire team needed to visit to sign off the work. She felt the operative should have known this beforehand. She did not want the same operative to return.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged that following reports of fly-tipping on 17 April 2023, it attended on 20 April 2023, but there were additional items. It then arranged an urgent collection for 15 June 2023. It apologised for the delay.
    2. Explained that following the resident’s initial complaint request on 29 March 2023, she had agreed to allow it the opportunity to resolve her concerns and not log the complaint at stage 1. She made a further enquiry on 3 April 2023 which it discussed internally, but it did not communicate the outcome. On 6 June 2023, she had said that she had a current complaint, but this was not the case. Following her further request on 11 June 2023, it had contacted her on 12 June 2023, raised the complaint, and apologised.
    3. It acknowledged there had been delays in completing work to the loft, resulting in multiple visits and inconvenience. It confirmed that an operative attended on 5 May 2023 to fill visible holes. They identified additional works, but did not raise these. They also assessed work in the kitchen and raised a job to remove the sink unit to fill any holes, which was not complete. Following contact on 22 May 2023, it arranged another visit for 8 June 2023. This was to inspect the loft space and kitchen for entry points and the operative again reported the work needed.
    4. Noted her comments regarding the visit on 9 June 2023 and that no work took place in the kitchen. It apologised for any miscommunication and said that its operatives used their own judgement and experience when raising work. It had now raised a job to remove the sink unit, bath panel, and bathroom boxing and fill holes. It aimed to complete this by 18 September 2023.
    5. It offered £150 compensation to acknowledge its failure to communicate effectively, and the inconvenience experienced due to multiple visits and delays to progress the repairs. It discussed the complaint with the resident over the phone on the same day and she did not accept the offer of compensation. Its records show that she did not want to escalate the complaint as she wanted to pursue a claim for damaged property first.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate that an operative completed work to fill holes on 4 July 2023. However, there was a misunderstanding initially as the operative said they were there to address issues with rats, not mice, and the landlord asked them to reattend. It completed works to renew a roof tile around the gas flue and check the adjoining roof on 10 August 2023, and to remove the sink unit, bath panel, boxing, and fill holes on 9 October 2023. There was a no access appointment on 19 September 2023 to renew the fire-resistant plasterboard in the loft which was subsequently completed on 8 November 2023.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 February 2024. She said that she had previously asked for compensation for clothes damaged by the mice infestation, but the landlord did not do anything. She said the works completed had either not been successful or there were additional holes as the mice had returned. She added that pest control told her the trees and bushes needed cutting back or removing as this was where the mice were coming from. On 29 February 2024, she said that the previous mice problem had made her unwell and she was worried about becoming unwell again as the mice had returned in her boiler room and in the loft. She asked that the landlord seal both areas. She added that she had asked the landlord to escalate the complaint multiple times and remained unhappy that it had not resolved the problem.
  8. A work order to inspect the loft was reported as completed on 1 March 2024. The resident called to chase an appointment booked for 27 March 2024, however, the landlord established that this was not in the inspector’s diary, and it needed to rebook this.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2024, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged that there had been multiple visits to the property to resolve the pest issue and it had previously arranged pest control. It had arranged a visit for 2 April 2024. It confirmed it would inspect the property, loft space, and chimney and it would see if there was further support it could offer.
    2. Confirmed the repairs it had completed to date, including to fill holes in the property, fill holes in the loft, insert a board between the properties, and replace roof tiles. It said she informed an operative that there were no further pests on 18 September 2023.
    3. Confirmed that it was due to complete the tree work within 6 months from the date of the inspection, which would have been by the end of February 2024. The work was now due to start on 25 March 2024 which was just outside of its normal service standard. It apologised for the delay.
    4. Admitted that it had not acknowledged the escalation on 22 February 2024 within its usual 5 working day timescale for which it apologised. It offered an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the delays in its complaint handling, and the delay associated with the tree maintenance work.
  10. The planned visit took place on 8 April 2024. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in April 2024 as the landlord had not resolved the pest problem. She said the situation was impacting her mental health and sleep. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs and compensate her for the emotional damage caused and damage to her personal belongings. In August 2024, she reported that the landlord had not yet filled the holes in her loft which were potential entry points for mice. Operatives cleared the loft insulation on 20 August 2024. In October 2024, the resident said it had not filled the holes in the loft or reinstated the insulation. On 14 November 2024, the landlord said it had not found holes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation has impacted her health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or award damages in the way a court might. The Ombudsman has considered any general distress and inconvenience which the situation caused the resident.
  2. The resident added that she needed to get rid of clothes due to the infestation and wanted compensation for damaged items. As above, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether the landlord is liable for, or award, damages. This is best suited to an insurance claim. The investigation will consider whether the landlord adequately responded to this request.
  3. The resident reported that the issues involving pests are ongoing following the landlord’s final complaint response, including that the landlord removed the loft insulation but did not put this back. This investigation focuses on the period from January 2023 to April 2024, when the landlord committed to reinspecting the property and loft space. The landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to its handling of ongoing reports through its complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate.

The resident’s reports of pests and fly-tipping, and associated repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for reporting repairs and allowing the landlord access for repairs, including pest control. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it should complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It should complete “Fix it at your convenience” (or routine) repairs within 20 calendar days. It should complete planned repairs within 90 calendar days.
  2. Landlords should consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising, potential health hazards, including pests. Where it identifies any potential hazards, it should complete works and monitor.
  3. The landlord introduced a management of vermin and pests procedure in August 2023. It states that when it receives a report of pests, it will arrange a visit to the site within 3 working days. It should consider whether there are issues that may attract vermin, such as fly-tipping and overgrown vegetation and take remedial action. In all cases it should order a pest control treatment. If vermin are present in the loft space, it should complete an inspection of the area to identify damage and address access points once pest control treatment is complete. The landlord would monitor the situation and keep the resident updated until it resolves the issue.
  4. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as pests as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset and treatment is usually required over a period of time before the matter is fully resolved. Filling evident access points, while appropriate to prevent entry, will not always mean that pests cannot enter the property. However, the landlord is responsible for taking reasonable steps to eradicate pests when these are reported.

Fly tipping

  1. The resident reported fly-tipping on 24 January 2023. The landlord raised a job and aimed to collect the items by 10 February 2023, but the resident reported that the items were still there on 16 February 2023. It raised a further job with a target of 2 March 2023. The resident reported this again on 24 and 31 March 2023.
  2. There is no clear documentary evidence to show that operatives cleared the items during this time and the Ombudsman is unable to establish that the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports. On 31 March 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would visit, take pictures and speak with the neighbouring tenants. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether it did so. However, its records indicate that it raised a new job to remove the rubbish on 3 April 2023 with a target date of 10 April 2023.
  3. In its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord explained that it had received a report of fly-tipping on 17 April 2023. Given the brief period between 3 and 17 April 2023, and the lack of available evidence, it is unclear whether the landlord removed the original items. It said it attended to remove the items on 20 April 2023 but there were more items than the request stated. However, the Ombudsman has not seen records to reflect this within the landlord’s submissions. The landlord’s records show that the resident continued to report fly-tipping on 22 May 2023, and someone had moved items to a fenced area. The landlord said it arranged an urgent collection for 15 June 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the resident continued to report fly-tipping following this, suggesting that it removed the items.
  4. Given that its records indicate it was aware of pest issues in the area, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had been proactive in its approach to removing fly-tipped waste and warning neighbours against dumping waste which could attract pests. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it took a proactive approach.
  5. While the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing reports from 17 April 2023 and upheld this aspect of the complaint, it failed to adequately take into consideration the length of time the resident had been reporting the problems, consider the history of her reports, or any failures to address her concerns in the period prior to her complaint. In addition, it has failed to provide any reassurance as to how it would prevent fly-tipping in the area long term. This was likely to make the resident feel ignored. The landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it managed her reports appropriately.

Loft and pests

  1. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays in its handling of the loft repairs. It acknowledged that this led to multiple visits and inconvenience to the resident in its stage 1 response. However, its response did not consider the full history of the resident’s reports or any missed opportunities it had to address her concerns earlier.
  2. The landlord initially raised a work order on 3 January 2023 to find and block holes allowing squirrels into the resident’s loft. It attended this within appropriate timescales on 23 January 2023, and the operative reported that there were no visible holes. An operative attended a further job on 22 February 2023 where they reported blocking holes. It remains unclear as to how many holes were found, whether they were new holes or whether the operative missed these on the initial visit. In her communication on 29 March 2023, the resident disputed that the operatives had completed work and asked for an inspection. While operatives told her to contact pest control on both visits, the landlord did not act proactively by arranging this itself prior to her complaint communication.
  3. While the evidence provided suggests that pest control began treating the property on 5 April 2023, the landlord has not provided reports showing whether pest control made recommendations, or it acted on these. The landlord took reasonable steps to repair the resident’s guttering and drain once reported but the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing work to the drain as this was not addressed alongside the guttering repair. It remains unclear as to when the work was completed as the landlord’s repair records refer to a drain, gulley and manhole.
  4. The landlord initially raised a further work order to fill holes in the loft on 17 April 2023 as the pests had been treated at this stage. It scheduled this for 2 May 2023. The resident needed to call to chase up the appointment on the day. Its records indicate that it had booked a plasterer instead of a bricklayer which meant that it needed to rebook the work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the inconvenience caused by the failing within its complaint response.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the inconvenience caused by multiple appointments between 5 May 2023 and 9 June 2023, and the miscommunication by its contractors, noting that the operative who identified that fire boards in the loft were damaged had not raised work within a reasonable time. However, it failed to offer any reassurance to the resident as to when it would complete the work.
  6. It was aware of the gap in fire resistant boarding between properties in the loft on 5 March 2023 and did not complete works until 8 November 2023, a period of 187 calendar days and significantly outside of its routine or planned repair timescales. It failed to comment on, explain the reason for, or put right the failings within its subsequent responses.
  7. 7 work orders were raised in relation to the fire-resistant boarding in the loft between 19 June 2023 and 6 November 2023, including an asbestos survey. While there was a no access appointment on 19 August 2023, which was outside of the landlord’s control, it cancelled several orders with no apparent reason, rebooked one due to an operative not being qualified, and rebooked one due to not allocating enough time for the work. It did not comment on any failure on its part or confirm its position within its subsequent complaint response; neither did it put matters right.
  8. The Ombudsman has not seen ongoing reports from the resident between November 2023 and February 2024, suggesting that there were no pests present during this time. Following the resident’s further reports of pest issues on 22 February 2024, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging an inspection to “check brickwork for any hole/entry points throughout/external and loft” for 1 March 2024. While any visible entry points were checked, the job notes show that a follow-on job was required to access the loft with a ladder and a light. 
  9. It its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the resident said she was told 2 operatives would attend. It said it did not have evidence to show that she was told this, that 2 operatives were required to access loft spaces for health and safety purposes, and it had only booked one operative for the visit on 1 March 2024. This response was likely to cause confusion and did not acknowledge any failure on its part. The job description specifically referred to inspecting the loft, and the landlord should have instructed 2 operatives from the outset to avoid the need for multiple visits. It did not acknowledge any inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of needing another appointment.
  10. The landlord scheduled a further appointment to inspect the loft for 27 March 2024. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, it said this had been cancelled and rebooked for 2 April 2024, a month following the initial inspection – this was an unreasonable timescale. It offered no apology for the delay or explanation as to why it cancelled the appointment. Its records indicate that the resident chased the appointment on the day, and it established that the appointment was not showing in the inspector’s calendar. It was not sure whether this was removed from the calendar or whether it had not booked the appointment correctly. While its records say that it apologised to the resident, it could have done more to offer transparency and address the failing within its complaint response.

Kitchen and bathroom

  1. The resident reported that there were gaps under her sink where mice could enter on 12 April 2023, and the landlord raised a repair. The kitchen was subsequently inspected on 3 May 2023, within the landlord’s routine timescale, with further works noted as required to “remove sink unit, bath panel, and bathroom boxing in to look for mouse holes and fill”. The landlord has stated it raised the work within timescale. However, the subsequent work order was not raised until 23 May 2023, 20 days later. The work order described the work as “fill holes in bathroom and kitchen” with a note describing the kitchen hole as large and the bathroom hole as small. The resident raised concern that operatives did not complete work on 9 June 2023.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint response by apologising for miscommunication, offering compensation towards this element of the complaint, and confirming it would rebook the works to remove the unit and fill holes before 18 September 2023. It set out that operatives used their own judgement and experience when raising required works. However, it did not acknowledge that the operative who attended on 9 June 2023 was not instructed to remove the unit as described to fill holes, or the errors made.
  3. The landlord’s records indicate that operatives attempted to complete the repairs on 4 July 2023 but the resident reported they said that they were there for rats, and she did not have rats. The landlord’s records indicate that it would ask the operative to reattend that day, however, the work was not reported as completed until 9 October 2023, a considerable time later. While the landlord acknowledged that it had completed the work in its stage 2 complaint response, it failed to explain its position in relation to the delay or apologise for any failing on its part in rebooking the work. It also remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether it completed additional works to fill holes in the bathroom at the time and whether it adequately addressed the resident’s concerns.

Trees and shrubbery

  1. In her communication on 22 February 2024, the resident raised concern that the landlord had not cut back or removed trees and shrubs as recommended, and that pest control told her this was attracting pests. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that pest control recommended this work, however, it has not disputed that it initially aimed to complete this within 6 months of an inspection (by the end of February 2024).
  2. The timescale provided by the landlord suggests that it was aware of the problem in August 2023. The landlord’s repair policy makes no provision for a 6-month timescale and confirms that it should complete planned works within 90 calendar days following an inspection. While the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the work, and offered compensation to account for the delay, it failed to provide the reason for the delay or provide evidence to support that a 6-month timescale was appropriate.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation is not proportionate in view of the failures in this case. There were significant delays that it did not acknowledge or explain, several scheduling and organisation failures in its handling of repairs, and a lack of communication which caused distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation below. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her continued reports following its final complaint response. As above, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of her ongoing reports, but we have ordered the landlord to address the further concerns.

The resident’s complaint

  1. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, it aimed to acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 29 March 2023. The landlord said that an agreement was made verbally not to log a complaint at stage 1 as the resident agreed to allow it the opportunity to resolve her concerns at the first point of contact. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of the complaint recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. This must be agreed with the resident, and a landlord must keep adequate records to demonstrate this.
  3. The landlord has not provided the evidence it relied upon when asserting that the resident had agreed not to log the complaint formally at this stage. Given that the resident’s concerns were not a first request for service, and related to a dissatisfaction with the lack of action taken during previous visits, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to handle the matter formally from the outset. It has confirmed that the resident also raised concern on 3 April 2023 and 6 June 2023, meaning it had the opportunity to treat these formally sooner than it did.
  4. On 11 June 2023, the resident said she had asked the landlord to move the complaint to stage 2 and had been ignored. In line with the Code, landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident. While it is evident that there were delays in handling the complaint formally, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, prior to moving the complaint to stage 2 of its process. While the landlord responded within its published timescales once the complaint was logged, the delay in logging the complaint formally was unreasonable.
  5. Landlords are expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to engage with the resident’s concern that a fire specialist was needed to sign off the work or confirm the actions it would take to progress work, which was likely to cause additional frustration. While it identified that there had been miscommunication when booking repairs, it failed to offer transparency regarding the kitchen unit work order being raised incorrectly or confirm what steps it would take to prevent similar failings in the future. It also failed to comment on the resident’s request that the same operative did not return to the property.
  6. Following its stage 1 complaint response, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint until 22 February 2024. It is, however, noted that she said she wished to claim for damaged items at the time of the stage 1 complaint response and there is no evidence to show that the landlord gave adequate advice at the time. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2024, which was 24 working days following her request. It acted reasonably by acknowledging that this was slightly outside of its timescales, apologising and considering this within its compensation offer.
  7. However, the response failed to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint, including her request for compensation for damaged clothing. The landlord did not respond to her concern or confirm how she could raise a claim with it, or its liability insurer, as she believed it was liable for the damage.
  8. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had adequately learnt from the complaint. While it said it had completed repairs, it did not comment on any delays or the reasons for the delays which was a missed opportunity to put matters right for the resident. While its stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that operatives used their own judgement and experience (which varied) when raising repairs, it failed to consider the impact this could have on its handling of repairs. It did not acknowledge that there had been further scheduling errors in its handling of the repairs since its stage 1 complaint response or set out what it would do to improve its service.
  9. The landlord made a combined offer of £100 at stage 2 for both the delay in responding at stage 2, and the delay in completing work to trees and shrubs. Overall, the landlord did not offer suitable redress for its handling of the complaint as it did not appropriately acknowledge its complaint handling failings or demonstrate points of learning. Several orders have been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of pests and fly-tipping, and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £500 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of pests and fly-tipping, and associated repairs.
      2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.

This is in addition to the offer of £250 made within its complaint responses, which it should pay if it has not already done so.

  1. Consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing pest issues since March 2024 and any failings which contributed to continued delay. It should allow the resident the opportunity to confirm any specific reason for dissatisfaction. It should set out its findings in writing to the resident and make an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of any ongoing delay since its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024 where appropriate. If dissatisfied with its response, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord, if she has not already done so.
  2. Confirm to the resident how she can make a claim for damaged items which she believes the landlord is liable for.
  3. Provide the resident with a timescale in which it intends to reinstate the insulation in the loft.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 10 weeks. The review should also consider:
    1. Its timescales for raising follow-on works after an inspection.
    2. How it will ensure that the correct contractor is instructed to attend in the first instance and job descriptions provide an accurate reflection of what is required.
    3. Why there were multiple appointments for the same works in this case and what it can do to reduce this in future.  
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the specified timescales.