Peabody Trust (202201042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201042

Catalyst Housing Limited

30 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property following flooding.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in December 2009. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
The property has a vented cylinder that provides hot water to the property. Note that the resident referred to the cylinder as “the boiler” throughout her complaint.

Summary of events

The repair log shows that on 29 May 2021, an emergency callout was made to the resident in response to her reports of an “uncontrollable leak”. This was evidenced as completed the same day.
The repair log shows that on 1 June 2021, a repair was raised for a faulty ball valve causing the hot water cylinder to overflow. This was evidenced as completed on 4 June 2021.
On 17 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She explained that:
1. she reported the following repair issues but did not receive a response:
  1. the window frames needed replacing following the contractor’s advice. She thought this was going to be followed up but did not hear anything further
  2. the kitchen units were damaged by the fire brigade following their visit about a flood from a “burst boiler”
  3. the skirting boards in the hall and living room were splitting from the wall due to suspected dampness, again caused by the recent boiler bursting incident
  4. the bathroom tiles were coming away from the wall
2. she followed this up with an email on 7 July 2021 and did not receive a response
3. on 16 July 2021 she spent 40 minutes on the phone and once connected was advised to call back as the operative could not hear her
4. she said that on 15 July 2021, two tiles fell on her daughter’s foot whilst she was showering
5. she was unhappy that her complaints were being ignored.
The case notes show that on 20 July 2021, the resident reported that the window frames needed replacing, which she said was highlighted by an inspection earlier in the year, but she had not heard anything since. In addition, there was damage to her kitchen units. The case notes evidence the work on the kitchen units were completed on 19 August 2021.
The case notes say that an inspection was arranged for 30 July 2021. An internal email of 4 August 2021 confirmed that following the inspection, the back door and windows were beyond repair and needed renewing.
An internal email of 9 August 2021, raised works orders for the following items:
1. renew bath completely
2. remove tiling to damaged plaster
3. make good walls
4. re-instate tiles
5. re-mastic all joints on completion
6. check/test fan
7. reinstate kitchen plinths
On 13 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response saying that:
1. following an inspection, the back door, and windows were beyond repair and needed renewing. Its contractors would contact the resident to book the necessary appointments
2. it was sorry for the delay in resolving the complaint and that all repairs have been handed to the contractor
3. it concluded its stage one complaint response.
On 28 August 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated because she was unhappy with the following:
1. the bathroom works were not scheduled for completion until 13 September 2021, which included fitting a new bath and tiles
2. no one had been in contact about the windows or provided a timescale for the work to be done. She highlighted the fact her daughter had asthma and the situation could potentially worsen her condition, therefore she wanted the window repairs completed before winter
3. a contractor visited in relation to the boiler and advised that the previous fix to the boiler in May 2021, was only a temporary fix and that it could burst again if a permanent fix is not done soon
4. she was concerned that the boiler was not safe and could burst again. Furthermore, a significant amount of mould was in the cupboard housing the boiler
5. the landlord’s contractor said that a request would be going in for a new boiler, for a vent to be installed in the cupboard, and for dehumidifiers to be provided in the interim, however no further contact had been received.
6. a surveyor advised her that the skirting boards were the tenant’s responsibility to maintain, however, she disagreed as the damage was following the burst boiler
7. she said the issue with the kitchen units was minor but no one had confirmed any kind of timescale for resolving it, which was unacceptable
8. there was mould in the main bedroom
9. that no comment had been made in relation to the waiting time on the phone
On 2 September 2021 the landlord responded, requesting the resident confirm which window frames needed replacing. It also said that it would provide dehumidifiers and raise the need for the skirting boards to be replaced.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2021 saying that the contractors advised her that all the window frames needed replacing. In addition, she had not received any confirmation of what was being done to make the boiler safe and when it would be fixed.
On 20 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord explaining that:
1. the contractor did not attend to carry out the bathroom repairs due to staff sickness. She also said no one contacted her in relation to re-booking the appointment
2. there was a hole next to the bath and the tiles were loose on the wall due to the dampness. She wanted a risk assessment to be carried out to determine if it was safe to use, “as the tiles could fall at any time”. She said that the landlord should be carrying out the work as a matter of urgency
3. she said that she tried to report it via telephone but was on hold for “some time”. She also said it was “pointless” trying to resolve anything via its “front desk”
4. she had still not heard anything about when the landlord would fix or replace the boiler, she was told it would burst again sooner or later
5. the mould was making her daughter’s asthma worse
On 22 September 2021, the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in relation to the long waiting times on the phone. This was evidenced by internal emails.
On 26 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying there was no progress on the repairs and the stage two response was “well overdue”. She requested the landlord urgently address the safety issues in her property.
The landlord responded on 28 September 2021 apologising for the delay and advised a response would be with her by 1 October 2021.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to request a 10-day extension for providing the stage two response. It said it would send an engineer to look at the cylinder to ensure it was safe.
The resident responded the same day saying that the landlord could attend any time with regards to the hot water cylinder.
On 4 October 2021 an engineer inspected the cylinder. The landlord updated the resident the same day saying that the cylinder was to be replaced however, it could take 4-5 weeks for delivery. In addition, the flooring was to be replaced.
The landlord sent its final response on 19 October 2021, saying that:
1. due to staff sickness it failed to attend an appointment for the bathroom works on 13 September 2021 and had to rebook for 1 and 2 November 2021
2. it apologised that the appointment was cancelled last minute and that it should have been rescheduled for another date on the same day
3. it was sorry for the length of time it was taking to repair the windows and confirmed the work would be done on 1 and 2 November 2021
4. it carried out a stock condition survey of the resident’s home on 7 October 2021 which identified that the windows were in “generally good condition but in need of maintenance and repair”. This included trickle vents needing easing and adjusting as they wouldn’t open
5. it should have carried out a stock condition survey sooner as it missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint sooner
6. any window works would be completed before “the winter”
7. there was a burst pipe in May 2021 which flooded the resident’s flat and the neighbour below. Although it carried out satisfactory repairs, it was sorry to note it didn’t action this item with its recommendations which would’ve “produced a more positive outcome”
8. a “boiler inspection” was carried out on 4 October 2021, which confirmed it was not a boiler but a water cylinder. The surveyor confirmed it was safe but recommended upgrading it and replacing the water-damaged flooring
9. there was a 4-5 week waiting time for delivery of a new cylinder but it would keep the resident updated
10. it should have carried out a full inspection following the flood and actioned a replacement sooner and would replace the flooring
11. the resident said a surveyor advised her the skirting boards were the tenant’s responsibility and that under normal circumstances, its surveyor was correct in his instructions. However, it accepted it was its responsibility to refix the skirting following the severe flood damage
12. it hoped to replace the plinth on 1 and 2 November 2021 when the other works were carried out. However, there may be a delay in obtaining a colour match for the plinth
13. due to “consistent condensation, damp and mould” in the resident’s home, along with the health issues affecting her daughter, it said it would provide the resident “with an opportunity to purchase a permanent dehumidifier” of her choice to meet the family’s health needs
14. the resident was unhappy she was on the phone for 40 minutes on 16 July 2021. It apologised explaining it had very high call volumes that day and acknowledged her frustration
15. it awarded the resident a total of £450 made up of
  1. £300 for the length of time taken to resolve the repairs
  2. the choice to purchase a dehumidifier to address the condensation,
  3. and a £150 goodwill gesture.
On 23 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that:
1. she wanted confirmation that a mould wash of the walls was going to be done on 1 or 2 November 2021
2. she was concerned that no acknowledgment was given about the windows not closing properly
3. she would provide her bank details after the works were completed on 2 November 2021.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident. It said that:
1. it apologised for overlooking the mould repair and confirmed a wash would be carried out on either 1 or 2 November 2021
2. accepting the compensation would not mean that it would stop carrying out the repairs
3. the complaint process was now exhausted, and she should contact this service if she remained unhappy.
An internal email evidenced that the work had begun on 1 November 2021. It said that:
1. there had been a long-term leak under the bath that had rotted the floor and walls. It may have spread but the contractor could not be sure until it pulled more of the floor up. It said the resident did not have a bath, and it could not be put back until the flooring issue had been resolved.
2. the WC and wash hand basin were usable, but it would still need to remove them to be able to investigate further. The email noted that it had turned into “large works” and “contractor and surveyors would need to meet to be able to agree on what was needed.
On 2 November 2021 the contractor emailed the landlord saying that:
1. it did not hear back in relation to its previous email
2. it had replaced the kitchen plinth but could not do any further works
3. it was thought that the water damage was not caused by the bath but by the cylinder water leak and that water was possibly still under the flooring and insulation.
On 10 November 2021 an internal email said that various works could be carried out whilst the tenant agreed to remain in situ as a decant would be an inconvenience. It suggested a dehumidifier be supplied “urgently” which would help whilst it waited for works to commence.
Internal emails show provisional dates for the works to be completed were scheduled for 6 to 9 December 2021.
An internal email of 11 November 2021, said that in relation to the window and door replacement, it was “not a quick job…..not something that can just be done”
On 16 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord requesting an “urgent update” as there was mould and damp throughout the flat, she had no bath or shower, and the windows did not close properly. The resident said she had been without a bath for two weeks.
The same day internal emails were sent in relation to whether the windows were being repaired or replaced. It said:
1. a works order was raised on 6 September 2021 for the window frames to be replaced, after that the resident contacted the landlord to advise the repairs did not take place on 1 or 2 November 2021
2. no measurements were taken as the resident stated they were done but had no update. Furthermore, the resident lived in a block of flats so a full window replacement may be seen as “favouring”
3. it would not be a case of favouring anyone, as the windows were broken, and could not close. Therefore, the only way to repair them was by replacing the entire frame. Also, if there were no measurements taken, then that should be next on the list to action. It noted that the resident had had so many inspections about the windows, she was “rightfully fed up”.
On 17 November 2021 internal emails confirm a dehumidifier was provided to the resident.
On 18 November 2021 an internal email said that the repairs team would not normally replace all the windows of a property. However, if they were in poor condition then the planned works team may consider bringing them forward.
A case notes entry on 19 November 2021 shows that the quoted works were approved.
Case notes on 20 November 2021 say that all window frames needed replacing.
On 14 December 2021 internal emails confirm that a new cylinder was fitted. The contractor advised that a universal pump would be needed as the water pressure was low in the flat.
On 4 January 2022 the resident reported an “uncontrollable leak going down to the flat below, which was the same leak as before coming from the bathroom”.
The resident reported that she had no hot water on 11 January 2022.
The resident reported that she had no hot water on 14 January 2022, saying that the new hot water tank had stopped working. In addition, since the new bath was fitted the water pipes in the bathroom leaked. The same day this was raised as an emergency repair.
On 9 February 2022 the resident contacted her landlord explaining that the situation was “incredibly stressful” and outlined what had previously happened as per the timeline above. Furthermore, she said that the flooring in the hall was removed on 8 February 2022, there was mould on the walls and the windows did not close properly.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord responded by saying that it was “truly sorry for the situation”, however despite the repairs not being done the resident should escalate her complaint with this service.
On 27 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update in relation to the flooring in her property. She said she had made numerous phone calls but was not provided with any information. There was also mould in the bedrooms and heating cupboard and the windows were not secure.
In addition, the resident requested to have a designated person act on her behalf due to the stress of chasing the matter and requested a nominated point of contact for the landlord.
On 15 April 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with this service. She confirmed that most of the work had been completed however the windows, and skirting boards remained outstanding. In addition, it said it would provide a vent to the cylinder cupboard which was also outstanding.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 April 2022 to advise that three windows would be overhauled in her property. They were not done previously as the engineer had advised it would take two days and should not be carried out in the winter months.
On 14 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord explaining that the flooring that was laid in the hallway was coming up and was spongy and misaligned. The windows were almost complete however the contractor had not re-hung them or replaced the rotten timber. She said that the windows should have been replaced as per the final response.
This service has not been able to speak with the resident or landlord, subsequently, no up-to-date detail of the current situation has been provided.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for keeping “in good repair” windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, door, and window furniture, including necessary external painting and decorating. In addition to internal walls, floors, and ceilings, doors, door frames, door hinges, door furniture, and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration.
It also says that it is responsible for keeping “in good repair and proper working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating, and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity”.
The landlord’s repair policy says that emergency repairs are “repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of customers, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area”. It aims to attend within four hours, make safe within 24 hours and, if required, finalise the repair within our routine repair targets”.
Routine repairs are all repairs that are not an emergency. The policy says residents will be offered the next available appointment” and complete routine repairs within one visit. It aims to deliver routine repairs within an average of ten working days. However, some repairs may take longer to resolve, due to their complexity or specialist nature.
In relation to its planned works the landlord repair policy says that:
1. where it has plans to replace a major component (e.g., a boiler or kitchen), in its annual planned maintenance programme, it may consider only completing minor repairs to make sure the component is functional until such time as the whole component is replaced. Where this is the case, it will tell its customers when they can expect the component to be replaced.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the property following flooding.

The landlord acted in line with its repair policy and timescales by responding to the leak of May 2021 within 24 hours as this was an emergency repair. In addition, it responded to the faulty ball valve in June 2021 within 10 working days which was a routine repair.
On 28 August, 5, and 20 September 2021 the resident raised concerns with the landlord regarding the safety of the cylinder. It took the landlord 26 working days from the initial report to inspect the cylinder. This was not appropriate or in line with its policy. Furthermore, the landlord should have carried out a safety inspection of the cylinder soon after the leak occurred.
The resident contacted the landlord three times about the issue and the landlord’s lack of action demonstrated that it was not taking the resident’s complaint seriously. The safety of the cylinder would have been of great concern to her given the previous leak, which the landlord would have been aware of. The delay was frustrating for the resident and caused her distress.
Furthermore, the delay in inspecting the cylinder, delayed the landlord in identifying the need to replace it, and in turn delayed the ordering of a new cylinder, which had a 4–5-week delivery time.
As a result of the leak, damage was caused to the resident’s flat including the skirting boards, flooring, and mould growth. On 17 July 2021, the resident raised various concerns regarding outstanding repairs following the leak. She said that the tiles in the bathroom had fallen on her daughter’s foot. As a result, an inspection was carried out on 30 July 2021 to identify what works were needed.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to do this, it should not have relied on the resident to report the multiple issues after the flood. The landlord would have been aware of the extent of the flood, so should have arranged the inspection soon after. Furthermore, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to be proactive in its investigation of the flood damage such as taking up the flooring and providing dehumidifiers as soon as possible. It should be proactive and routinely fully inspect all properties after significant floods and leaks.
Likewise, the works were not scheduled to be carried out until 13 September 2021, 41 days later. This was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy or timescale of an average of 10 working days.
The works were not carried out on 13 September 2021 due to staff sickness. This was outside of the landlord’s control, nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have scheduled the works as a priority, especially given the fact it was aware the tiles were falling from the wall and could injure the resident.
The landlord again failed to follow its repair policy as it then scheduled the bathroom repairs for 1 and 2 November 2021, 36 days after the original appointment and 76 days after the resident’s formal complaint.
After identifying that the works required were significantly more than first thought, the landlord offered to decant the resident, which she declined. This was appropriate particularly given that the works could not be carried out until early December 2021.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord advised the resident it would provide her with a dehumidifier, however, there is no evidence that this was provided at this time. Furthermore, on 10 November 2021, it also highlighted the need for a dehumidifier to be provided to the resident urgently. Despite this, the landlord did not supply one until 16 November 2021. It was not appropriate it took two months to supply, especially as the landlord was aware the resident’s daughter suffered from asthma and the resident had reported mould growth on several occasions.
This Service’s spotlight report outlines that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
As a result of the leak, the skirting boards were damaged. The resident was initially advised that it was her responsibility to maintain, which she disagreed with. The landlord said that its surveyor was correct, however, given the damage was caused by a leak, it would carry out the repair.
Although the landlord agreed to carry out the skirting board repair, it was incorrect of the landlord to advise the resident it was her responsibility to maintain it. This is because the tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping skirting boards in good repair.
The landlord said in its final response of 19 October 2021 that it would repair the skirting board. However, on 15 April 2022, 125 working days later, the resident advised this service that the skirting board repair remained outstanding. This was not appropriate and significantly outside of its policy timescale.
It has been evidenced that the landlord promptly addressed the leak from the water cylinder and offered the resident £450 compensation in its final response. Nevertheless, this amount does not reflect the impact, the delays and outstanding repairs have had on the resident over a prolonged period of time. The resident had advised the landlord how “incredibly stressful” the situation was.
The landlord was slow to respond to the damage the leak had caused. The resident complained in July 2021 regarding various disrepair issues outlined in the summary of events. The works were not completed until December 2021, with some issues still outstanding in June 2022.
During this seven-month period:
1. the resident had chased matters on numerous occasions
2. there was a delay of five months to carry out a safety inspection of the cylinder following the leak and the resident’s concerns about the cylinder not being safe
3. there was a delay of two months in providing a dehumidifier
4. there was a delay of 76 days before it carried out the tile repair to the bathroom
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, taking into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. This service’s remedies guidance does not set out minimum or maximum compensation levels, rather it provides some guidance on the suggested ranges of compensation levels.
Therefore, the Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include compensation based on the rent of around 15% for the 20-week delay period. The delay period being July 2021 to December 2021. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £617.60 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 15% of the weekly rent (£105.88) at 22 weeks and £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the repairs outlined above.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the windows

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for keeping “in good repair” windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, door, and window furniture, including necessary external painting and decorating.
It is unclear from the evidence provided when the windows were first identified as needing replacement. The resident raised the issue in her complaint of 17 July 2021 and the landlord carried out an inspection on 30 July 2021. This was appropriate and helped the landlord identify what action was needed.
The landlord evidenced six times that the windows needed replacing. This was on:
1. 4 August 2021
2. in its stage one response to the resident on 13 August 2021
3. 2 September 2021 when raising works orders
4. 11, 16, and 20 November 2021
5. In June 2022 the resident confirmed to this service that the works to the windows were almost complete but had not been replaced.
On 18 November 2021 an internal email said that the repairs team would not normally replace all the windows in a property. However, it could be considered under planned works. As per its policy, the replacement of all windows in the property could be considered a major component to replace. Therefore, considering it under the planned maintenance programme was appropriate. Nevertheless, no information was provided to the resident, nor was she kept abreast of the situation in relation to the windows. This was frustrating for the resident and cause her distress and inconvenience.
Furthermore, the landlord’s repair policy clearly says it has a responsibility to keep windows in good repair. The landlord had failed to do this and the disrepair of the windows remained outstanding from July 2021 to June 2022.
In summary the landlord failed to carry out any repair to the windows for 11 months despite highlighting the need for replacements six times. It did not keep the resident informed as to any decisions it made regarding the window repair or if they were to be replaced under its programmed works.
Therefore, in recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by the resident for the delay in carrying out the repair the Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
Our order will include compensation based on the rent of around 15% for the 47-week delay period. The delay period being July 2021 to June 2022. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £1046.36 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 15% of the weekly rent (£105.88) at 47 weeks and £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the window repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. There is no timescale detailed for stage one responses to be sent. However, the complaint handling codes say stage one responses should be sent within 10 working days.
The complaint policy says its stage two responses will be sent within 10 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 July 2021, with the landlord responding at stage one on 13 August 2021. This was 19 days later, which is outside of the 10 working day timescale detailed in the complaint handling code.
Very few details were provided to the resident in its response. As a result, the resident escalated her complaint on 28 August 2021. She noted that the landlord failed to address some of the points she raised.
The landlord advised the resident on 28 September 2021 she would receive a response by 1 October 2021. However, the following day it requested a 10-day extension.
The landlord failed to keep to this timescale and sent its final response on 19 October 2021. This was not appropriate. It was 36 days later which is significantly more than the 10 working days detailed in the complaints policy and 20 working days as detailed in the complaint handling code.
The final response did provide the resident with more details of its actions, apologised, and accepted its failures for the delay in responding to the resident complaints. Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation.
Therefore, £150 compensation has been awarded to the resident for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property following flooding.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
3. Complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a five-month delay in carrying out the repair works following the leak from the cylinder. Furthermore, the resident had pursued the issue numerous times during this period.
The window repairs remained outstanding for almost one year, during which the resident had chased the matter several times. In addition, the resident was not kept updated as to the landlord’s proposed action to remedy the situation.
Both complaint responses were outside of its complaints policy timescale. Furthermore, it also failed to keep to the ended timescale it suggest to the resident at stage two.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Pay directly to the resident directly compensation totalling £2295.72 made up of:
  1. £450 previously offered to the resident
  2. £349.36 compensation for the flood
  3. £746.36 compensation for the windows
2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to repairs to the property following flooding and repairs to the windows
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint
4. This can be reduced by any compensation already paid.
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to review the handling of reports of damp and mould and consider whether it would be appropriate to review or introduce a policy in relation to how it responds to reports of damp and mould. The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould for further detail and recommendations.
The landlord to consider producing a leak or flood procedure whereby it routinely fully inspects all properties after any significant leak or flood.
The landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the windows to decide if the repairs have been effective or require replacement.

Recommendations

Review its staff training needs in relation to record keeping, to improve its practices in relation to communication with residents. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
Review its staff training needs in relation to their understanding and application of its complaints and compensation policies and its compensation procedure to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, if this has not been done recently.