Norwich City Council (202234907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234907

Norwich City Council

21 December 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a first floor flat and the tenancy commended on 30 March 2020. The resident lived at the property with her daughter who, at the time of the complaint was 7 years old. At the time of the tenancy sign up the resident indicated that there were no disabilities or support needs in the household. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has since advised that they have Crohn’s disease.
The landlord has provided limited repairs records for the property. However, the records provided note that:
1. In December 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the roof was leaking and that water was coming through the artex ceiling and was running down her front room wall. There are limited details related to this report but the records note that this job was completed on 21 January 2021.
2. The same day as the repair records noted that the job was completed, the resident reported damp, mould and ‘‘wetness’’‘ in her property and that her kitchen had only been upgraded a few months previously. This report was listed as non-emergency and recorded as being ‘‘fully abandoned’’ on 6 May 2021.

Summary of events

On 12 December 2022 an electrician attended the resident’s property, as an emergency call out, in response to a report of loose wiring in the bedroom which, the landlord was told, could not be used as it was ‘‘wet from the damp’’. The landlord noted that the electrician had reported that the sockets were ok and that a damp inspection had been booked as the ‘‘damp issues (were) very bad’’.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord raised a job to install extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord repair records note that this job was completed on 3 January 2023.
On 22 December 2022, and prior to the installation of the extractor fans, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was experiencing ongoing damp issues at her property which had not improved for 2 years and which was spreading to other areas. The resident went on to explain that:
1. She had had a kitchen upgrade a year and half ago and that since this was done she had been unable to use certain kitchen units as there was mould inside them.
2. There was mould in the kitchen, bathroom, front room and front bedroom, and that the front bedroom and living room had damp patches around plug sockets and in the middle of the walls.
3. It was disappointing that she had been unable to decorate the flat since she have moved in and her clothes all felt damp. The resident also said that she had had to buy plastic boxes with lids to keep things in.
4. She was allergic to penicillin, and as such was concerned that the black mould could kill her. She also had an autoimmune disease and the damp and cold did not help.
On 2 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord, sending more photos and telling the landlord the damp was getting worse.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say that they had passed the resident’s email through to the Property Service’s team, who would be in contact with her to arrange a mould wash.
The resident replied the same day saying that she had already done that and asked if there was nothing more the landlord could do as she had wet/damp electric plug points in the middle of the walls, which were also wet. The resident went on to repeat that she had had this issue for over 2 years and now had ‘‘massive’’ sections of artex falling off the ceilings and walls. The resident also explained that she washed the mould daily or weekly with the ‘‘stuff’’ the landlord had left the previous year. The resident said that it was ‘‘really unacceptable to be having to live like this. Not able to use kitchen units and my clothes are damp and stink, let alone a massive eye sore when I have people over’’ The resident said that she was told she needed a new roof.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 January 2023, confirming that Property Services had spoken to her that week to arrange a mould wash and a damp survey. The resident was advised of the name of the contractor who would be in contact soon to arrange this.
At some point between 6 and 30 January 2023, the resident was admitted to hospital with pneumonia.
On 30 January 2023, a housing officer messaged the resident, saying that they understood that she was being discharged from hospital that day and that they had managed to book a building and damp survey for 10:30am the following morning. The resident responded to say that that was fine and that she had been trying to organise somewhere to stay.
The following day the resident messaged the housing officer she had been in contact with the previous day for an update on the survey, as she said she was currently sleeping on a sofa with her daughter. The housing officer said that they were not the duty housing officer that day but that they had sent an email to the relevant people.
The damp report completed on 31 January 2023 referred to:
1. High level mould patch in living room which appeared to be emanating from a leaking roof.
2. Valley rafter in bathroom which was badly stained and showing a moisture content of 60°+ on meter.
3. A suspected leak in valley gutter.
4. High level condensation on the sloping ceiling in master bedroom which would appear to be condensation, the slope probably having been insulated when building was first erected.
5. Slight mould showing on rear of some kitchen cupboards which appeared to be condensation.
6. The flat appearing to be well ventilated with open windows, they were unsure how much it had been heated while the resident has been in hospital, but there was no reason to dispute the resident’s claim that the heating was left on.
The report recommended:
1. Urgent roof repairs, the report having noted that the roof leaking in two separate areas was the main cause of the issues.
2. That a mould wash should contain the marking on the ceiling, walls and kitchen cupboard back.
3. An investigation into the possibility of insulating the ceiling slopes from above.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord advised the resident that its Property Services had said that a decant was not necessary. The same day the resident said that she would be making a complaint and wanted a copy of the surveyor’s report.
The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on 3 February 2023, saying that she was getting nowhere with the landlord on rehousing herself and her daughter, having been made homeless due to the leaking roof and damp issues in her flat. The resident said that:
1. The damp issues had been ongoing for over 2 years without being fixed, were getting worse and spreading through her flat. This had led her being admitted to hospital with pneumonia, which she said was caused by the black mould in her flat.
2. She was discharged from hospital on the evening of 30 January 2023 and received a text from a duty housing officer asking if they could send a building and damp surveyor around the following day. The resident said that she and her mother met with the building and damp surveyor, despite her recent discharge from hospital.
3. The outcome of the inspection was that there was significant damp and structural issues with the property and she was told she could not live there with the amount of damp and the extent of work that would need to be carried out.
4. When she text the duty housing officer back, she was told that they were not the duty officer that day and so could not help, but would pass the information on. The resident said that she was still waiting, despite having rung the previous day and being told there had been an emergency meeting about her situation and she would be getting a phone call or email. The resident said that she had not received anything and was constantly chasing for an update.
5. She had been informed by a neighbour that contractors had tried to get into her flat and to break in though her windows. The resident said that this was totally unacceptable, especially as the landlord knew she was not in the building. The resident said that she had to pay for a taxi to get to the flat and let the operatives in to look around, only for them to make similar findings to the building and damp surveyor. The resident said that both had said there was a lot of work, that it could take months and that no one could be living there.
6. She was currently staying with a friend about 6.5 miles away from her daughter’s school, she had no car and was signed off work, where she did not get sick pay. The resident said that this was due to the landlord’s failure to carried out repairs and make sure her property was safe.
7. She was in a desperate situation and that staying at her friend’s house was not the solution, but that she had nowhere to go. She had contacted the landlord to resolve this but got no response and that she should be resting and recovering from the pneumonia.
On 7 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord, and various councilors, explaining her situation and the impact it was having on her. The resident said that:
1. No one seemed to want to take responsibility or know what was happening. That she had had to go back to her flat, even though her doctor seemed to feel this was the possibly the cause of her stay in hospital for pneumonia.
2. This had been very stressful to her and her daughter as they had had to bed hop/sofa surf because the landlord did not help with any temporary or permanent alternative accommodation.
3. She was currently living in chaos and mess despite having reported and emailed the landlord about the ongoing damp and mould situation in the flat since 2020.
4. She seemed to be told one thing by the building and damp specialist and then told something different over the phone by the landlord.
5. She was very dissatisfied and upset with the treatment she had received as she was the one constantly chasing the landlord to find out what was happening when she should be recovering somewhere safe and habitable for her and her daughter.
This Service has seen a ‘to whom it may concern’ letter from the resident’s GP dated 6 February 2023 which states that the resident was ‘‘suffering with pneumonia which could be caused by the mould in her flat.’’ The GP said that they would be grateful if the recipient could ‘’urgently help rehouse her’’.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord arranged a hotel stay for the resident and her daughter from that day until 16 February 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023. And then issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. In its response the landlord said that it was sorry that the resident had experienced issues relating to damp and mould in her home. Its contractor had attended and completed damp works in her property on 21 February 2023 and it had now closed ‘‘this damp enquiry’’. It went on to say that if the resident believed more works were required to combat the damp and mould to let it know and it would arrange for further action to take place.
On 24 February 2023, the resident’s local councillor emailed the landlord saying that it should have received an email from Shelter, a copy of which they had attached, regarding the resident. The councillor noted that the resident had been ‘‘suffering health issues due to damp and mould in her property’’ and that she had been temporarily moved but was now back in the property. The letter from Shelter, which this service has seen a copy of, is undated but refers to the resident returning to her property the following day.
The landlord issued its final response on 24 March 2023, referring to the resident’s escalation request of 3 March 2023, a copy of which has not been seen by this service. In its response the landlord said that:
1. It understood the resident’s outstanding concerns were:
  1. The condition of the property when she moved in in 2020.
  2. That she had not been provided with a full report on the works completed by its contractor.
  3. That no compensation had been offered.
  4. That she was unable to redecorate her property without assistance.
2. It understood that to resolve the complaint the resident was seeking:
  1. A copy of a surveyors report and any information relating to work completed by its contractor.
  2. For assistance in redecorating her property.
  3. For compensation to be provided.
3. The landlord said that:
  1. Its Information Governance Team had confirmed that the full report and works completed by its contractor, as well as other repair requests relating to the resident’s property, were sent on the 13 March 2023.
  2. If the resident would like to move home to contact its Home Options team for which it provided a contact number.
  3. In regards to compensation, its compensation guidelines could be found at the on its website or the resident could contact a given phone number.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 18 May 2023, a damp and mould survey was carried out at the resident’s property, which recommended that the lead valley be stripped and a replaced, that the live roof leak in the bathroom be addressed and that the existing extractor fan be inspected and replaced it was found to be defective. It was also recommended that the live plasterwork to the corner of the living room was hacked off and replaced and that the window to the north elevation is suitably pinned.
The report also referred to ‘‘a number of internal works have been undertaken by the landlord including the installation of a plasterboard to the ceiling of the living room and bedroom 1 in an effort to improve the thermal performance of this area of the property which has previously suffered from mould and internal condensation as a result of cold bridging’’. It is noted that this was the only detailed mention of the any works carried out by the landlord in any of the evidence provided.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord raised a job to renew the lead valley gutter, which was recorded as being completed on 26 May 2023. The landlord also raised jobs to hack back plaster, overhaul a window and renew the trickle vent and to install a new extractor fan, all of which were recorded as being completed on 18 July 2023.
On 25 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident the results of a third-party surveyor’s report regarding the suspected damp or condensation at the property. The landlord advised the resident that once these works were complete it could take between six months and one year for the problem to fully subside. It then went on to remind the resident of the clause in her tenancy agreement that stated that she must ventilate her home and keep it at a reasonable temperature so as to minimise condensation. It also advised the resident where ‘‘Helpful advice and tips on reducing condensation’’ could be found.
On 26 June 2023, in an email to the resident’s councillor, the landlord said that:
1. The first recorded reports of these issues by the resident was on 4 December 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic there was a limit to actions that could be taken to resolve these issues.
2. During the period where damp remedial works where completed, between the 31 January 2023 to the 13 March 2023, it had temporarily decanted the resident into hotels.
3. The tenant then reported further damp issues that were investigated and it arranged for further remedial works to resolve this issue. The tenant had been offered a temporary decant to the property until these works had been completed.
In a telephone conversation with this service on 16 October 2023 the resident confirmed that the landlord did initially temporarily decant her but had now offered her the decant property on a permanent basis.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to create a record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In this case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions related to the repair records, referred to in the follow assessment, underlines the inadequate record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. As a result of this failure the landlord has been ordered to carry out a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report.

Relevant legislation, policies, procedures and guidance

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and in accordance with the tenancy agreement to complete repairs and to do so within a reasonable time.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 said landlords should have zero-tolerance to damp issues; communicate effectively internally and with residents; consider the vulnerabilities of households; and overall deal with such issues in a timely manner.
In its response to the Regulator of Social Housing’s letter, seeking assurances on addressing risk related damp and mould, dated 22 November 2022, the landlord said that:
1. It took the health, safety and wellbeing of its residents extremely seriously, including reported damp and mould growth
2. Where damp or mould was reported it triaged the reported issue to determine the likely cause and it would then arrange for a contractor or surveyor visit to undertake remedial works or further investigate the reported issue.
3. It investigated all reported instances of damp or mould reported. All required repairs would be undertaken to address the issues present. In some instances where required works were more substantial it would bring forward major or planned capital works programmes to address the identified issues.
4. Where a resident reported damp and mould it would:
  1. On the first occurrence, raise an order for a contractor to attend and carry out a washdown and report back. If concerns were identified a damp surveyor would attend and if remedial works were required, these would be carried out.
  2. On the second occurrence, again raise an order for a contractor to attend and carry out a washdown. If a survey had not already been carried out, an inspection would be arranged and, if identified, remedial works carried out.
  3. On the third occurrence, again raise an order for a contractor to attend and carry out a washdown. It would also arrange for an independent third party damp consultant to attend and specific any remedial works required, which it would then carry out.
5. It had recently commissioned a new stock condition survey, which will initially encompass 25% of the total stock with a subsequent rolling programme capturing the remainder of the stock. The landlord said that this would enable it to more clearly identify the HHSRS rating risks associated with a range of measures including damp and mould.

Reports of damp and mould in her property.

The evidence provided by the landlord confirms that it was aware that there had been issues regarding a leak and reported damp at the resident’s property as early as December 2020 and January 2021, respectively.
On 12 December 2022, the landlord was again advised of damp within the resident’s property. On this occasion the report was made by an electrician, who had attended an emergency call out in response to a report by the resident of loose wiring in her bedroom which could not be used as it was ‘‘wet from the damp’’.
Having been thus informed the landlord was ‘‘on notice’’ to carry out a reasonable enquiries to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord has not provided this service with its repairs policy, nor has it been possible for this service to access the policy on the landlord’s website.
The landlord has provided copies of both the tenancy agreement and it’s ‘Your new home’ booklet both of which acknowledge the landlord’s responsibility for many repairs at the property. However, whilst both documents make reference to these repairs, the information related to this is limited, with the focus being on the resident’s and not its responsibilities. Both documents also fail to include any information about what might be considered an emergency or routine repair, nor any timeframes for its response any of these. This service has also been unable to access this information on the landlord’s website.
In general, emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, would be expected to be attended within 24 hours. For routine day to day repairs, the general standard amongst social landlords is around 20 working days. Given the lack of service standard information provided by the landlord, these response times have been taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s actions in this case.
The landlord records note that a damp inspection had been booked following the report made by the electrician on 12 December 2022. However, despite this service’s Damp and Mould report, which states that landlord’s should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely, and reflect the urgency of the issue, and its submission to the regulator, the landlord has provided this service with no evidence that the inspection took place nor what the outcome was.
The landlord was again notified by the resident, on 22 December 2022, of concerns about the damp and mould. In her report, the resident advised that the damp had spread and that she had health concerns about the black mould, explaining that she had an allergy to penicillin and that she had an autoimmune disease, which the damp and could did not help.
In circumstances where the landlord is aware that there may be vulnerabilities in the household, and where extensive works may be required, the Ombudsman expects landlords to consider the individual circumstances of the household and whether or not it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home at an early stage. However, despite being made aware of the resident’s health concerns the landlord simply advised the resident that it would again carry out a mould wash and would again arrange for a damp survey to be carried out. The resident was provided with no timescales for the damp survey to take place.
The damp report was not completed until 31 January 2023, over a month after the report made by its electrician and by which time the resident had been admitted to hospital with pneumonia.
As this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action lead to the resident’s being admitted to hospital, nor can it calculate or award damages, as these matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of any failures by the landlord.
The damp report of 31 January 2023 identified multiple repair issues at the property and, whilst it recommended a mould wash to contain the marking on the ceiling, walls and kitchen cupboards, it also recommended urgent roof repairs stating that this was the main cause of the issue.
The landlord has provided this service with no evidence that it took any action with regards to the recommended urgent roof repairs. This is a serious failure by the landlord, given that the inspection on 31 January 2023 stated that this was the main cause of the issues.
In addition, and despite confirmation of the presence of damp in the property and in the knowledge that the resident had been in hospital with pneumonia, the landlord again failed to evidence that it gave any serious consideration to whether it was safe to allow the resident to return to the property, the landlord advising the resident on 2 February 2023 that a decant was not necessary.
It was not until the resident had made formal complaint to the landlord about its lack of action, which she did on 3 February 2023, and with the provision of a ‘‘to whom it may concern letter’’ from the resident’s GP confirming the resident had had pneumonia and raising concerns about her property, that it arranged for her and her daughter to stay in a hotel from 8 to 16 February 2023. It is noted that, in addition to her medical concerns the resident had, between 30 January 2023 and 8 February 2023 (a period of over 2 weeks) repeatedly advised the landlord that she and her daughter had had to live with a friend, and of the difficulties this had caused her.
In a later response to a local councillor, the landlord said that it had temporarily decanted the resident into hotels up until 13 March 2023, however, this service has seen no evidence of any other hotel stays being arranged by the landlord. That the landlord had decanted the resident until 13 March 2023 also does not tie in the evidence seen by this service including:
1. That in its stage 1 response the landlord said that the works to the resident’s property were completed, and ‘this damp enquiry closed’’ on 21 February 2023.
2. That in correspondence to the landlord from both the resident’s local councillor and from Shelter, it is evident that the resident had returned to her property by 24 February 2023.
As with the previous repair jobs, this service has seen no evidence from the landlord as to what actions were taken, or when, in respect of the works it said it had completed. It has also provided no evidence of it keeping the resident updated with the progress of the works or what the works entailed. In its final response the landlord said that the full report and works completed by its contractor, as well as other repair requests relating to the resident’s property were sent on the 13 March 2023, but has provided no evidence to this service supporting this.
The only evidence of the landlord carrying out any works was given in the damp survey that was carried out on 18 May 2023, however there is no evidence of when these works were actually completed.
With regards to the works recommended in the damp survey carried out on 18 May 2023, the landlord did on this occasion act appropriately, raising jobs the next day and completing the works within a reasonable period of time. The renewal off the lead valley gutter was completed on 26 May 2023, 5 working days later, and the job to hack back plaster, overhaul a window and renew the trickle vent and to install a new extractor fan, on 18 July 2023, 20 working days later.
Whilst the landlord’s prompt action in this instance is welcomed, this does not detract from its significant failures up this point. It is also noted that the survey was not carried out, nor the works completed, until after the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint.
Overall, and have considered the available evidence, I am therefore satisfied that the multiple failures identified above amount to severe maladministration by the landlord.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The complaint process provided the landlord with the opportunity to investigate what happened, to identify if there were any failures or short comings, to consider what the impact of those might have been the residents, taking into account any known vulnerabilities and to offer appropriate redress. It was also the opportunity for the landlord to consider what learning it might take from the complaint in order to improve its service going forward. However, in neither its stage 1 or stage 2, with the exception of commenting on the most recent reports and the actions it had taken, did the landlord do so.
The landlord response to the resident’s reports and complaints lacked empathy and was, at times, dismissive. The landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. Within both complaint responses, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s complaint points or explained what evidence it considered. It did not refer to its own investigation or policies. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to thoroughly investigate and respond to the individual points raised and consider the impact on the resident but it failed to do so. Furthermore, the landlord had failed to evidence that it either recognised the need, or took any steps, to learn from the resident’s experience.
Overall, and have considered the available evidence, I am therefore satisfied that the failures identified with regards to its complaint handling amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant gaps in the information provided by the landlord with regards to the reports and as such the landlord has failed to evidence that it took appropriate and timely action to resolve the reported damp and mould in the resident’s property. Whilst it repeatedly said that it would carry out a damp inspection the only evidence of the landlord doing so was on 30 January 2023, after the resident had been admitted to hospital with pneumonia, and on 18 May 2023, after its final response to the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord did respond appropriately following the survey of 18 May 2023, the landlord has provided no evidence that it took any action following the survey in January 2023, despite that survey reporting that urgent roof repairs were required. In addition, and despite confirmation of the presence of damp in the property and knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord also failed to evidence that it gave any consideration as to whether or not it would have been appropriate to move the resident out of her home at an early stage. Further it also failed to consider whether such action would have been appropriate when the resident had been discharged from hospital with pneumonia. The landlord’s failure to do so resulted in significant and unreasonable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord response to the resident’s reports and complaints lacked empathy and was, at times, dismissive. The landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s complaint points or explained what evidence it considered. The landlord also failed to evidence that it either recognised the need, or took any steps, to learn from the resident’s experience.

Orders

Within 20 working days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident. The apology is to be made by senior management and the resident is to be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,800, made up as follows:
  1. £1,500 for the failures identified in this report in relation to its response to her reports of damp and mould at her property.
  2. £300 for its handling of the associated complaint.
Within 30 working days of the date of this report, the landlord is to undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case. The review is to address the following specific areas of concern:
1. Its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report.
2. How it responds to resident’s vulnerabilities and how these are considered in relation to when a decant might be provided.
3. It’s ‘Your new home’ booklet and its website to ensure that these provide residents with information about what might be considered an emergency or routine repair, and any timeframes for its response to these.
4. The complaint handling failures identified in this report and what steps it intends to take to ensure that going forward it responds to complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within the timescales specified.