Wandle Housing Association Limited (202123253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123253

Wandle Housing Association Limited

28 June 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident assigned to the tenancy by way of mutual exchange on 16 January 2020. The property is a two-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says:
1. Emergency repairs are carried out within 24 hours. Appointed repairs are carried out within 28 days. In certain circumstances appointed repairs will need to be completed within 7 days where that repair should be treated as urgent.
2. It will agree a mutually convenient appointment to attend and do the work, except for emergency repairs where there is a requirement for residents to be available during the 24hr period. Appointments for inspection will be made where possible at point of contact, these will be undertaken by suitably qualified personnel.
3. It will provide a text/call messaging service to remind tenants of the appointment and ring en route to ensure availability.
4. The landlord recognises the need for extra consideration and support when delivering services to vulnerable residents. The landlord will deal sympathetically with requests and update tenancy information accordingly, using this to help verify the vulnerabilities of customers that may merit additional priority for repair work.
5. The landlord will take reasonable steps to ensure that missed appointments are minimised and to keep residents informed throughout the repairs process. Appointments missed will be monitored and reported as part of its performance monitoring process. It will compensate residents for missed appointments, in line with its complaints and compensation policy.
The tenant’s handbook says:
1. The landlord is responsible for:
  1. Plumbing. Drains, gutters and downpipes. Kitchen units and worktops. Baths, basins and toilets (excluding blockages inside the dwelling unless the resident has tried to clear the blockage themselves, and not been able to).
2. The resident is responsible for:
  1. Clearing blockages to baths, sinks and basins inside the home unless there is fault to the drainage system.
3. If the resident finds it difficult to meet their repair responsibilities because of age, illness or disability, the landlord may still be able to help.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. Where the landlord requires additional time to investigate a complaint, it may extend for a further 10 working days and will communicate this to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation resolutions will reflect the extent of any service failures and the impact these had on the customer. Factors considered when deciding to offer compensation include:
1. The duration of the service failure.
2. How often the customer was affected by the situation.
3. The severity of the situation.
4. Whether there were multiple service failures.
5. The cumulative impact on the customer.
6. A customer’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
This Service’s complaints handling code says:
1. A complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
2. The resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint), survey feedback and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible.

Summary of events

The resident informed this service that she had informed the landlord of her preferred communication method. This was via email or letter and not telephone due to her vulnerabilities and communication needs.
The resident made a number of complaints to this Service about outstanding repairs. A complaint about a communal window was withdrawn. A complaint about the front door and fire safety was determined by this Service in March 2023. This case relates to the resident’s following requests:
1. a pole to open the velux windows.
2. the kitchen plinths to be replaced.
3. a sewerage smell to be investigated.
It was not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported her repairs to the landlord. However, the resident told this Service that she had been reporting her requests since 2020 but that these had not been completed.
The landlord’s records for 2 April 2021 showed that it had made an appointment with the resident to complete three repairs. The appointment was for between 8am and 11am. A representative of the resident contacted the landlord and asked that all repairs be rebooked with a start time after 11am. On 16 April 2021 the landlord responded and apologised for the delay. It said it had sent a request to the contractors to reschedule the appointments.
On 27 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She felt that different departments were not communicating accurate information between them. She said she had already asked for help as chasing the landlord for repairs had become “common place and time consuming”. The landlord’s operative had left and agreed to carry out repairs when he returned on 5 May 2021. He agreed to:
1. Repair the kitchen cupboard kickboards.
2. Investigate the sewerage smell and gurgling drainage in the property.
3. A number of other repairs were also listed to be completed.
The landlord’s repairs logs showed an order on 28 April 2021 which said:
1. Seal gap under kitchen units to stop draught.
2. Pull bars (stick with hook) needed to help open and close windows in main bedroom and living room.
3. A further record for the same day said that a sewerage smell in the hall appeared to happen after the washing machine was used.
4. It also listed a number of other repairs.
On 30 April 2021 the resident wrote again to the landlord. She said:
1. She had once again been woken up by repairs at 9am despite specifically requesting times after 11am and rescheduling all works to fit around this.
2. She had received a voicemail to inform her that the person coming wanted to check what needed doing. She had already spoken to customer services, the complaints team, the surveyor and repairs team repeatedly about what work needed to be completed.
3. She again had to contact customer services to find out what was happening with her appointment times. During the phone call the list of works was read back to her and included “squeaky floorboards”, an issue that she had never raised.
4. She asked for the complaints, surveyor and customer services teams to talk to repairs and “sort it out once and for all”. She was “fed up” of visits to look at repairs and not actually fix them. If the landlord did not rectify its communication issue and the repairs, she would need to remedy the issues herself with her own contractor and would charge the landlord.
On 23 August 2021 the resident asked to raise a complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time her repairs were taking. She said that following the surveyor’s visit in 2020 she was still waiting for repairs to:
1. her kitchen cabinets
2. to provide a tool to open the velux windows
3. to investigate the sewerage smell coming from the hall and small bedroom.
4. She said that the repairs had been acknowledged and some attempted by the landlord but had since been ignored and remained incomplete.
On 8 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had scheduled in the works and booked an appointment for 5 October 2021 between 2pm and 5pm. It said the works would include:
1. Check kitchen cabinets as the resident had issues with gaps.
2. Provide a tool to enable the resident to open the windows.
3. Inspect the source of the smell.
On 13 September 2021 the resident responded to the landlord and said, “please DO NOT check the kitchen cabinets” as they had been checked by both the surveyor and a carpenter. The repairs were overdue and she wanted the repairs completed on the day of the visit. On 28 September 2021 the landlord responded and said that the instruction had been updated to ensure that the repairs were carried out on the appointed date, as per the resident’s email.
On 4 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said:
1. She was concerned about the continued pattern of receiving information from the landlord about repairs, the landlord not attending or carrying out the repairs. When a complaint was made the response remained the same, “this repair was attended and marked complete”.
2. In some cases, the repair had been attended but no repairs made. She was being forced to go through the complaint process, which took several weeks to receive replies, and then approach this Service as repairs remained outstanding.
3. The landlord was ignoring evidence she had sent in favour of believing only what the computer said.
4. She needed her concerns to be investigated properly and didn’t feel she should have to approach this Service every time she had a simple repair.
The landlord responded the same day and said it was sorry she was having issues with the repairs service. It asked for her address so it could look into the issues.
On 5 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that an operative had attended to carry out work but was not prepared and unaware of what the repairs entailed. He had left without making any repairs or providing a way to open the window. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded the same day and said it had opened a stage 1 complaint.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it looked like the complaints were being investigated but it would keep an eye on them to make sure they were followed up. It was not sure if the resident was aware, but its repairs service was being reviewed and it would be appointing external contractors who would be responsible for general works. One of the issues that was identified was work being marked as complete when a job had still not been completed. This was something the new contractors would be measured against so there should be an improvement in the service once the tender process was completed.
The landlord’s repairs records for 6 October 2021 said “check the property for drainage issues, the tenant keeps getting foul smells coming into the property. Stage 1 complaint about kitchen cabinets previously checked by surveyor and carpenter. The units with the gap will need to be resolved on the day as failure to do so will lead to a stage 2 complaint. Tenant is requesting a tool to open windows”.
On 7 October 2021 the resident wrote again to the landlord. She forwarded her email from 23 August 2021 to confirm her request to raise a complaint. She said that the surveyor had visited on 1 March 2021 after several delays. She provided a list of repairs which the contractor had agreed to do when it returned but it had instead marked all the works as complete and never returned. This was what had prompted her to make a complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident (no date on correspondence) and said that the resident’s case was a repair case and:
1. The resident’s email highlighted an issue that occurred more than 6 months ago. As per section 1.3 of its complaints policy it would not usually accept complaints where the issue had occurred more than 6 months prior. The customer service agent responded to the email by opening a repair case to complete the outstanding repairs.
2. The opening of a repair rather than a complaint case was in line with section 1.3 of the complaint policy. It stated that if there was a more suitable alternative policy to resolve an issue more effectively it would usually follow this policy. In the resident’s case, the more suitable alternative policy was its responsive repairs policy.
3. Following the resident’s email from the previous day, which said she was not satisfied with the repair, a stage 1 complaint was opened. It was sorry for any confusion caused but assured the resident that its complaints process had been appropriately followed.
On 8 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said she had every reason to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It was work which had not been completed and again requested her complaint to be escalated.
On 9 October 2021 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said it was sorry she had cause to complain about the service. It said:
1. The issue raised was about outstanding repairs to the kitchen.
2. It had checked its records which showed an operative attended on 5 October 2021 to replace the plinths in the kitchen. The operative did arrive without the materials as this was his first appointment, although it appreciated this may have been looked at by another department previously.
3. It found that it had acted within its policies and standard processes however it was sorry that she was disappointed with the service.
4. In the resident’s complaint she had requested that outstanding repairs were carried out. To resolve the outstanding repairs an appointment had been booked for 21 October 2021 between 11am and 2pm.
5. It hoped its response had addressed her concerns and offered reassurance that it was listening. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response to the complaint or if it did not complete the actions set out above, the complaint could be escalated to the final stage of the complaints process.
The resident queried with the landlord whether a different contractor could be appointed and if there was a timeframe for the new contractors. On 13 October 2021 the landlord responded to say that there was not an alternative to the current service providers. Its contractor usually only attended after hours and that day-to-day repairs were carried out by its in-house repairs team. The landlord believed it was going to be outsourcing its repairs service and everything should be in place the following year. It asked the resident to “drop it a line” when she next reported a repair. It would flag the job with its repairs schedulers, so they were aware of the issues previously experienced. It said it would check in with the resident to make sure the job was carried out properly.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said that she had only ever had the contractor attend. The repairs were raised some time ago and the surveyor had confirmed the repairs. Jobs had not been completed and she had made a complaint. She had asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2, however the landlord was refusing to escalate saying the complaints process was only at stage 1.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it had spoken with the complaints team. It said it had looked at the case and the correct complaints procedure had been followed. The complaint was being investigated at stage 1. It believed that the complaints team had sent a letter explaining the reasoning. It attached a copy of its complaints policy and said it understood the resident’s frustration with the level of service received from the repairs team.
On 21 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said that she was given an appointment time of 2pm to 5pm. She was then sent a text stating that the appointment was 11am to 2pm. She telephoned to confirm the appointment time which she had been told was 11am to 2pm but no one had attended. She left her home at 2:15pm and received a call at 2.20 pm saying that someone was there to do the kitchen. The operative said they had been booked for the afternoon appointment. The resident said that “once again the repairs booking had failed”. The resident again asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
On 4 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to remind it of the outstanding repairs. She said that they were first raised in 2020, then followed up by an appointment with the surveyor. Several repair appointments had been made and none had resulted in the completion of the repairs.
On 20 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said it had been 4 months since she had asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and that she had received no response. She had therefore passed her complaint to this Service. She asked for a response so that she could negate the need for this Service’s involvement. She said the outstanding issues were:
1. The kitchen cabinets had large gaps underneath leading to the outside wall which lacked insulation. There had been a recent carbon monoxide leak leading to a survey of gas pipes. The kitchen cabinets were due to be removed for investigation. She suggested insulating the walls before replacing the cabinets and adding the missing parts of the cabinets when replacing them.
2. The sewerage smell from the hallway and small bedroom needed to be investigated. There was slow drainage and on occasion when flushing the toilet, using the washing machine or running taps in the sink, the water bubbled back up through the bath plughole.
3. She needed a tool to open the windows. After recently opening the windows, she had nearly fallen due to dizziness. She would be purchasing her own equipment to open the windows as it had taken the landlord too long to put this right after initially raising this in March 2021. She expected to be compensated for the tool, as well as delays in communication and failures to attend repair appointments.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it could find no record of the resident raising a stage 2 complaint following the stage 1 response on 9 October 2021. It said it would escalate to stage 2 and acknowledge this separately.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said:
1. It was sorry it had been unable to resolve the complaint at stage 1.
2. The section of the landlord’s response where it said it had summarised the issues raised, and the outcomes sought, was not completed. It said, “use bullet points or numbering to list the issues highlighted and the outcomes desired by the customer”.
3. It had checked its records and repairs policy. It attempted to discuss the resident’s complaint in detail on 18 February 2022 as part of its investigation as it wanted to hear more about her experience of the service. The resident had not been willing to discuss the complaint and terminated the call.
4. Based on the information provided it had reviewed the repairs history. It was unable to find any outstanding repairs or recommended works. It asked the resident to ensure all new repairs were reported via its customer services team or through its online app. This would ensure it had accurate records and could manage the repair in line with its repairs policy.
5. The resident had advised that a schedule of works had already been agreed with the surveyor. To resolve the outstanding concerns, it had asked that the surveyor contact the resident without further delay to discuss the actions that had been agreed.
6. It found that the repairs team had acted within its policies but apologised if the resident was disappointed with the service and would ensure that the resident’s feedback was listened to and learned from.
7. It apologised again for the delays in its repairs service and issuing a response. It said there was a backlog of complaints which had resulted in delayed responses. The landlord offered £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s response of 28 February 2022 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
Following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process this Service wrote to the landlord to request information to investigate the resident’s complaint:
1. This Service originally contacted the landlord on 21 June 2022 to request information by 13 July 2022.
2. On 14 July 2022 and 26 July 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord again as the requested information had not been received by 21 July 2022 and 2 August 2022 respectively.
3. Under paragraph 10 of the Scheme the landlord is obliged to provide information requested by this Service.
4. After 6 weeks from the initial request the information had not been received. The landlord had not provided any explanation for the delay which was significantly outside of the 15 working days timeframe.
5. On 3 August 2022 this Service determined that there had been a complaint handling failure and issued a complaint handling failure order under paragraph 13 of the Scheme.
The resident provided an update to this Service on 30 May 2023. She said:
1. She had received a pole to open the windows in December 2022 which was broken. A replacement pole was sent to her in early 2023 but had the incorrect attachment. She finally received the correct pole in April 2023.
2. The plinths in the kitchen were never replaced. An operative had attended and put expanding foam on the inside near the wall which had helped with the cold, but the kitchen cabinet gaps remained.
3. The sewerage smell had never been investigated. The request was refused as an operative who attended to carry out a carpentry job was unable to smell anything. The smell had subsided but was regularly noticeable after it rained, or the washing machine had been used.
4. The resident also advised that despite advising the landlord that it should write or email the resident (except in emergencies) due to her communication needs, it continued to phone and had also attempted to contact her personal assistant who had stopped working for her over a year ago.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.

There was maladministration by the landlord as:
1. Under its repairs policy and outlined in the tenant’s handbook the landlord is responsible to repair kitchen units and for plumbing and drainage issues. Appointed repairs should be carried out within 28 working days in line with its policy.
2. The landlord repeatedly failed to address the resident’s repairs.
  1. The resident’s request for the kitchen plinths to be replaced, to prevent the cold air, remains outstanding as confirmed by the resident above. The landlord’s repairs records showed this was raised in April 2021. Several appointments were made to complete the repairs including an appointment for 5 October 2021 where the landlord had told the resident the repairs would be carried out that day. However, the operative arrived without materials and failed to complete the work. The landlord’s records of 6 October 2021 showed again that the plinths needed to be replaced.
  2. The landlord failed to investigate the smell of sewerage reported by the resident. The landlord’s records of 28 April 2021 and 6 October 2021 refer to the sewerage smell being reported. The resident confirmed that this was never investigated and remains outstanding.
  3. The landlord’s response and delay in providing a pole to open the window was unreasonable. The landlord’s repairs records showed that this was raised on 28 April 2021. The landlord’s records acknowledged that it needed to provide a tool for the resident to open the windows. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports of dizziness it repeatedly failed to provide the pole. It was provided in April 2023, 508 working days after the order was raised and 480 working days outside of its 28 days repairs timeframe. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and any impact this had on the resident.
  4. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that appointed repairs are carried out within 28 working days. The length of time for the landlord to complete the resident’s repairs was not appropriate nor in line with its own repairs and maintenance policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response only acknowledged repairs for the kitchen plinths despite the resident repeatedly listing the outstanding works in her correspondence. It said it had acted within its policies and procedures, however it failed to complete repairs within its 28 working day timeframe.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had tried to discuss the resident’s complaint by telephone but that she had terminated the call. The resident told this Service that she had informed her landlord of her preferred method of communication. This was via email not telephone due to her vulnerabilities and communication needs. If the landlord was aware of the resident’s preferred communication method, then telephoning would not have been appropriate.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 2 April 2021 to request that all repairs visits be made after 11am. The resident again advised the landlord on 30 April 2021 that she required visits after 11am, however contractors continued to arrive at 9am.
The landlord does not appear to have updated its records to reflect the resident’s requests about preferred method of contact or for visits after 11am. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that the landlord recognises the need for extra consideration and support when delivering services to vulnerable residents. The landlord will deal sympathetically with requests and update tenancy information accordingly. The landlord should ensure that its records accurately reflect the resident’s requirements to enable it to provide an appropriate service.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was unable to find any record of outstanding repairs. Its response was not reasonable given the number of times the resident emailed the landlord listing her repairs. It had acknowledged that there was an issue with its service and repairs were being marked as complete when they had not been undertaken. The landlord did not reasonably investigate the resident’s reports.
The landlord failed to acknowledge missed appointments as outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy. It did not reasonably investigate the resident’s repairs or acknowledge its failings. It did not acknowledge the distress or inconvenience caused to the resident or acknowledge its poor communication.
The landlord failed to comply with its repairs and maintenance policy and therefore this Service has made an order for compensation.

Complaint handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint as:
1. This Service’s complaint handling code says that a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
2. The landlord opened a repair case instead of a complaint despite the resident saying that she wanted to raise a complaint in August 2021. It also said that the resident could not raise a complaint which was about something which happened more than 6 months ago. It failed to recognise that this was about outstanding repairs which had not been completed irrespective of them being raised more than 6 months prior. The landlord’s response was therefore not appropriate or in line with the complaint handling code. The landlord should have raised a stage 1 complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction.
3. The landlord said that opening a repair case was appropriate following the resident’s email of 23 August 2021 and this was in line with section 1.3 of its complaint policy. Section 1.3 said that if there is a more suitable alternative policy to resolve an issue more effectively and efficiently it would usually follow this policy. In this case it was its repairs policy. This was not appropriate as the resident was complaining that her repairs had not been completed despite previously reporting them a number of times. It was not reasonable for the landlord to re-raise repairs and not accept the complaint.
4. The resident asked to make a formal complaint on 23 August 2021. The landlord responded on 9 October 2021, 35 working days after the resident had asked to make a complaint and 25 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale.
5. On the 21 October 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident made several requests to escalate her complaint and the landlord said that it had no record of her requests.
6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 February 2022, 95 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint and 75 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescale.
During the investigation the landlord told this Service that the pole to open the windows was not part of the original complaint and had only recently completed its internal complaints process. It also said that the sewerage smell had not been through its complaints process. However, the resident clearly raised these issues in her complaint on 23 August 2021 and repeated them throughout her correspondence with the landlord. The landlord failed to address these elements of her complaint in its stage 1 and 2 responses.
The landlord offered £50 for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint through its complaints process. This was not proportionate to the time and trouble the resident incurred in repeatedly requesting to raise a complaint.
Section 3.2 of the landlord’s complaints policy says, “Where things go wrong, it is important as a landlord we have acknowledged this and set out the actions we have already taken, or intend to take, to put things right.” It did not acknowledge that anything had gone wrong and did not say how it would put things right. The landlord’s response did not demonstrate how it would learn from mistakes or ensure that this would not happen again in the future.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was poor as it used a template which was not complete. It failed to complete the section, “use bullet points or numbering to list the issues highlighted and the outcomes desired by the customer”.
The landlord failed to provide this Service with information when requested. Under paragraph 10 of the Scheme the landlord is obliged to provide information requested by this Service. A complaint handling failure order was issued.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy and therefore this Service has made an order for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its responses to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to reasonably investigate the resident’s reports of her outstanding repairs or complete them within the 28 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident compensation in the amount of £650:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience for the landlord’s failure and delays to carry out the repairs to the resident’s home.
2. £250 for time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within 4 weeks of this order the landlord is ordered to contact the resident in writing (not by telephone) to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the length of time her repairs have taken.
2. Arrange to replace the missing kitchen plinths.
3. Arrange to investigate the sewerage smell.
Within 4 weeks of this order the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of its complaint handling policy and provide staff training in order to ensure that any expression of dissatisfaction is treated as a complaint in line with this Service’s complaints handling code.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out a review of its record keeping to:
1. Ensure that resident’s vulnerabilities and communication preferences are updated on its system so all staff provide an appropriate service.
2. Ensure that repairs records accurately reflect where work has been completed or is outstanding.