Notting Hill Genesis (202427550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427550

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 July 2025

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould, and a leak inside the property.
2. Reports of a broken balcony door.
3. Query about her housing priority date.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives with her partner and 4 children. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a purpose-built block. The flat sits directly beneath a roof that is covered with vegetation.
The landlord is a housing association and owns the building. It uses a managing agent to oversee repairs and maintenance of the block.
On 27 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that her balcony door would not close properly and did not line up with the frame. She said this was causing a draft and allowing heat to escape from her flat. On 28 November 2023, she told the landlord that the extractor fans in the flat were not working properly. She said mould had returned in her daughter’s bedroom and that water was coming through the ceiling. She also asked the landlord to backdate her new housing band priority date to reflect the 6 years she had already spent on the waiting list in a lower band.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 January 2024. She said her flat had been overcrowded for 2 years and she urgently needed a housing transfer. She explained that 1 of the bedrooms could not be used because of a recurring leak the landlord had failed to fix, despite previous reports. She said all 4 children were sharing 1 bedroom and that 1 of her daughters was preparing for A-level exams. She said the balcony door was still broken, the extractor fans still did not work, and her housing officer had not responded to her earlier complaints. She also asked for compensation for the loss of room use and the effect the situation was having on her family’s quality of life.
On 23 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident:

Leak

The landlord explained what it had done since the resident reported the leak. This included inspecting the flat and asking the managing agent to arrange an inspection of the roof. It said it would update the resident once it received the outcome of both inspections
The landlord said the managing agent was responsible for repairing and maintaining the roof and communal areas. It apologised that the leak was taking longer to fix than the resident may have expected

Balcony door

The landlord apologised for the delay to repair the door. It explained that its original contractor had delayed responding before confirming it could not complete the job
The landlord said it had appointed a new contractor. After several failed attempts to access the resident’s flat, the new contractor took measurements and ordered a replacement door
The landlord said it had originally arranged to replace the door earlier that month but had booked the wrong timeslot. It confirmed it had arranged a new appointment for 24 January 2024
The landlord admitted it had handled the repair poorly and said it would offer the resident compensation once the repair was complete

Housing transfer

The landlord explained that the resident’s priority level was changed from ‘Band C’ to ‘Band B’ following a review in 2023. It said that because her band B status only began from that date, the time she had spent in band C could not be reflected in her band B priority date
The landlord said the resident previously appealed this decision, but the appeal was not upheld
The landlord said it understood the resident’s wish to move and was continuing to monitor available homes. It said there was limited supply but encouraged her to keep bidding on suitable properties

On 26 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the landlord had failed to communicate properly and had not dealt with mould along the wall near her daughter’s bed. She linked this to poor ventilation and overcrowding. She referred to a recent contractor visit to replace the balcony door, where the operative had found wet insulation. She said she had not received any update on this. The resident said the balcony door had been unsafe for several years, causing damage to her curtains and flooring, and increased heating costs. She also disagreed with the landlord’s claim of ‘failed visits’ in its stage 1 complaint response, as she said she had always been available for appointments.
On 2 February 2024, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor found that:
1. Condensation was visible on all windows and doors
2. The extractor fans were not working, which was making the condensation problem worse
3. Mould in both bedrooms had spread and worsened, reaching across the walls and around the window frames
4. There were signs of roof and cladding leaks affecting the living and 1 bedroom
Following the inspection, the landlord arranged a temporary hotel stay for the resident and her family from 8 February 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 February 2024. It accepted that it had failed to identify the cause of the condensation issues sooner and had communicated poorly. It admitted that its stage 1 response had not properly addressed the extractor fans or the delay in fixing them. It said it should have investigated this earlier. The landlord said that because the building included leasehold flats, it had to consult the managing agent about repairs to the building. It said it would now instruct roof and leak specialists to investigate the source of the leak, complete any urgent repairs, and carry out internal remedial works.
The landlord also accepted that delays to the balcony door repair had caused stress to the resident’s family. It said it had now created a new repairs team and was reviewing how it could improve its service. It added that it was setting up a specialist team to work with external agents and speed up repairs in similar cases.
The landlord offered the resident £1000 compensation made up of:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience relating to identifying the source of condensation
2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience of having to leave the home
3. £250 for poor communication
The stage 2 complaint response also said the landlord would consider a room loss payment – equivalent to 25% of the daily rent – once all repairs were completed.
In October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She also said she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of this complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of a leak from November 2023 onwards. While there is evidence that the landlord carried out repairs to a leak in her daughter’s bedroom in March 2023, there was a gap of around 8 months before the issue was raised again, and no further concerns were reported during that time. We have therefore not assessed the earlier events. The resident did not raise them as part of her current complaint, and the break in activity suggests those works were at least temporarily effective. It would be unfair to revisit earlier reports, especially as new or different factors could have been introduced. This report focuses only on the landlord’s handling of a leak from November 2023.
The resident told us that since leaving her home in February 2024, she has not yet returned. She said the landlord has moved her several times and that she is extremely unhappy with how it has handled the process. She said she is due to return home by the end of July 2025, but has raised concerns about electrical safety, a broken intercom, incomplete repairs, and the need for decoration to return the flat to its previous condition.
These concerns arose after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and were not included in the resident’s formal complaint. As a result, we have not assessed how the landlord handled these issues as part of this investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond through its complaints process. If the resident wants us to consider these matters separately, she will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s final response, she may then refer that complaint to us.
The resident told the landlord that her living conditions were affecting her family’s mental and physical health. We understand her concerns and recognise this was a difficult time. However, claims about personal injury or harm to health, fall outside the complaints process. These claims would need to be taken up with the landlord’s public liability insurer or through the courts, where medical evidence and claims of negligence would be reviewed.
If the resident believes the landlord’s actions – or lack of action – have affected her family’s health, she may want to get independent legal advice about making a personal injury claim. We have, however, looked at any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, and how it responded to her concerns about her family’s health.

Legal policy and framework

The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the roof, outside walls, doors, window frames, ceilings, and plasterwork.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 3 categories of repair:
1. Emergency – where there is an immediate risk to safety or the property, such as an external door that cannot be secured. These should be made safe within 24 hours
2. Standard – all other non-emergency repairs. These should be completed within 20 working days. The policy notes that more complex cases, including those requiring input from other residents, may take longer
3. Replacement – where a component needs to be replaced or improved, the landlord will communicate with the resident about the expected timeframe to complete the work
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer 25% of the daily rent where a resident loses access to a bedroom. The landlord may also consider discretionary compensation for damage to personal belongings or signpost residents to submit a claim to its insurers.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy says that it sets aside a small number of properties for existing residents who need to move because their current home no longer meets their needs. These transfer requests are assessed using the landlord’s own banding scheme.
Applicants are given a priority band based on how their housing circumstances affect their needs. The bandings are defined as follows:
1. Band A – for applicants with the highest priority, including those with life threatening medical conditions or facing an imminent personal risk
2. Band B – for applicants with a serious need, such as statutory overcrowding or severe social hardship, as agreed by 2 housing managers
3. Band C – for applicants with a moderate need, such as overcrowding under the landlord’s bedroom standard, other non-urgent social or economical reasons
4. Band D – for applicants with a desire to move but have no identified housing need
Applicants are also ranked within each band by the date they were awarded that band, with those registered longest having higher priority.
The policy states that applicants can appeal a decision if they are dissatisfied with the way their application has been handled, which will be considered by the landlord’s lettings panel.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and a leak in the property

On 28 November 2023, the resident reported mould had returned in her daughter’s bedroom, extractor fans were not working properly, and water was coming through the ceiling. Under the occupancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for addressing potential structural issues affecting the condition of the property. As the resident did not report active flooding or being unable to use the affected rooms safely at that stage, the report reasonably fell under the standard category of the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s report within 6 working days, stating that it would ask the managing agent to arrange a roof inspection. It also acknowledged the leak was a recurring issue and explained it could not have been certain, at the time previous repairs were done, that they would provide a permanent fix. This was a fair, timely, and transparent response. While the leak appeared complex and required involvement from another party, the landlord acted quickly to start investigation into the source, clearly outlined its next steps, and set realistic expectations.
However, we have seen no evidence that the roof was inspected. The landlord’s records indicate that the managing agent arranged an internal inspection of the resident’s home at the start of January 2024, which found the issues in the property were due to condensation. This conflicted with the landlord’s own inspection on 22 January 2024, which suggested water was entering from the roof or cladding. A further landlord inspection on 2 February 2024 confirmed the same suspicions, pointing to an ongoing external leak.
Despite these findings, the flat’s location directly beneath the roof, and the landlord’s earlier commitment, it took no steps to ensure the roof was inspected. We are not technically qualified to say if the roof was the source of the leak, but the landlord said it would arrange an inspection, and its later surveys raised concerns about the roof. In this context, its failure to follow through not only raised the resident’s expectations. It also meant the landlord did not take reasonable steps to identify and resolve a possible issue affecting the building’s structure and exterior, as required under its repair responsibilities.
In addition to not arranging a roof inspection, the landlord’s records show that it failed to provide the resident with any meaningful updates during a period of ongoing concern. After acknowledging the leak in early December 2023, there is no evidence that it gave any further update until 28 January 2024 – over 8 weeks later. In that time, both the managing agent and landlord had inspected the property, the resident had made a formal complaint, reported that insulation around her balcony door was ‘soaking wet,’ raised a stage 2 complaint, and flagged further concerns about the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom.
Although these events involved some contact, the landlord did not provide updates to explain what it was doing or what would happen next. This lack of communication was unreasonable and meant the resident had to chase for information at a time when she had ongoing and serious concerns about her home.
The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, published in May 2025, highlights the need for landlords to set out clear next steps, keep residents updated, and ensure repairs do not become a cycle of repeated reports and delays. This helps to build trust and reduce uncertainty. The landlord’s failure to do so in this case showed a lack of coordinated service delivery.
The landlord’s records show that it did not act on the extractor fan issue, which was a separate internal repair not linked to the leak. Its records show that in August 2023, its surveyor noted there was “no mechanical ventilation system in the kitchen and bathroom” and “no windows” in either room. This gave the landlord early notice of poor ventilation in the property, but it took no action.
After the resident’s November 2023 report, she highlighted the issue again in December 2023 and included it in her complaint on 12 January 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 22 January 2024 and confirmed the extractor fans were not working, but there is no evidence it followed this up. A further inspection on 2 February 2024 confirmed the fans were significantly worsening condensation in the home. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 February 2024, by which point the extractor fans were still not fixed.
This confirmed the resident had experienced at least 6 months of poor ventilation without action. The delay was unacceptable and not in line with the landlord’s obligations under the occupancy agreement and repairs policy. Failing to act sooner meant the landlord missed opportunities to resolve a contributing factor to the return of mould, causing further delay and avoidable distress for the resident.
It is also of concern that the landlord did not put in place suitable measures to minimise the impact of the ongoing leak and mould in the property. Government expectations set through standards such as the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), means landlords should identify and address potential hazards such as damp and mould to ensure their properties do not pose a risk to health.
The resident’s complaint on 12 January 2024 said her 4 children were “squeezed into 1 room”. Given the property was a 2-bedroom flat housing 6 people, the landlord should have investigated immediately how each room was being used and whether any spaces had become unusable. The landlord’s inspection on 22 January 2024 confirmed visible mould growth on the ceilings and walls of both bedrooms and the living room. Despite this, there is no evidence that it carried out any form of risk assessment to determine whether the property was safe to occupy.
The resident raised further concerns on 26 and 31 January 2024. She said the mould had spread to her daughter’s mattress and her children were now sleeping on the floor in 1 room. The records show that she repeatedly asked the landlord to confirm whether the property was safe, but there is no evidence it responded.
The landlord did not confirm the need to temporarily move the family to a hotel until after its inspection on 2 February 2024. This meant they had lived with an unusable bedroom and worsening mould for nearly 12 weeks without any clear assessment or plan. The landlord’s failure to act sooner exposed the family to prolonged distress and potential health risks.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 February 2024, it provided the resident with a clear outline of the next steps for the weeks ahead. This marked a more structured approach compared to how her concerns had been handled previously. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response emphasised these actions, apologised for the delays and poor communication, and offered a total of £650 compensation – £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in addressing condensation, and £250 for poor communication. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised its shortcomings and tried to address both the emotional and practical impacts on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where a landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on a resident, we generally recommend that landlords pay compensation of between £600 and £1000 to recognise the distress caused and to help put things right. In this case, the landlord’s compensation offer for the identified failings in this section of the report was broadly in line with what we would have ordered. It reflected the prolonged impact of the disrepair and poor communication, and the landlord’s improved efforts to acknowledge its failings and take appropriate steps in response.
In addition, the landlord’s records show that it issued a further complaint response to the resident on 12 December 2024. This addressed the distress caused by the resident being moved to a hotel and losing use of rooms before she moved. We have not assessed the compensation for the hotel stay as this forms part of a separate complaint. However, the landlord agreed to award 25% of the resident’s daily rent from 1 November 2023 to 9 February 2024. This amounted to £648, was in line with its compensation policy, and what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident if it had not already done so.
Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and a leak in the property. While it acknowledged its failings and offered compensation that was broadly in line with our Remedies Guidance, the underlying issues remained unresolved at the conclusion of the complaints process. This meant the landlord had not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord must pay the resident the £650 compensation already offered for the delay in addressing condensation and poor communication, if it has not already done so.
The landlord must pay the resident the £648 room loss payment, covering the period from 1 November 2023 to 9 February 2024, if it has not already done so.
The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the status of the outstanding repairs related to the leak and extractor fans, and any steps it has taken to ensure the property is safe and habitable before her return.
We acknowledge the resident also wanted the landlord to rehouse her and understand the impact the disruption of the leak has caused on her household. However, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to direct landlords to offer a particular property or secure a move. This is because such decisions are governed by the landlord’s allocations policy and must take account of the needs and priority of all applicants. Requiring the landlord to rehouse 1 resident over others would risk unfairness to those with higher priority under the policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken balcony door

The resident reported the balcony door as faulty in October 2022, explaining that it would not close properly, was out of alignment, and was letting heat escape. The landlord’s records show that it arranged for an operative to attend within 4 working days, in line with its standard repair timescales. However, because the fault involved an external door that could not be secured, the landlord should have treated it as an emergency in line with its policy, and attended within 24 hours. Its response was not appropriate and meant the resident was left with an unsecured door for longer than necessary, increasing the risk to comfort and safety in a home with children.
The landlord’s records show that during its operative’s initial visit to the resident’s home, they noted the balcony door adjusters were missing. Although the operative was able to temporarily adjust and lock the door, the missing adjusters suggested the issue may not have been fully resolved and needed further investigation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took steps to investigate further or resolve the issue at that stage.
The records show that a week later, the resident reported for a second time that the door was not closing properly due to the same issue. The landlord should have acted on what was found during the first visit and arranged any necessary repairs. Its failure to do so, fell short of its obligation to keep the resident’s home in good repair.
Following the resident’s second report that her balcony door would not close properly, the landlord arranged for an operative to return to her home 12 working days later. This was also an inappropriate response. The landlord should have treated the report as an emergency and attended within 24 hours. This delay showed a reactive approach to repairs, despite clear evidence from the first visit that the problem was recurring.
The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, highlights that failing to act on repeat issues and missing signs of disrepair can lead to worsening problems and loss of trust. In this case, the 12-day delay was another missed opportunity to take timely action and prevent further disruption for the resident.
When the operative returned to the resident’s home, the records describe the balcony door as ‘old and difficult to adjust.’ The operative reported the door frame as twisted, and they had to use a ‘wedge’ to help close and lock the door before leaving. This showed the door could not be secured without a temporary fix and was not working as it should.
Given these findings, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reassess the repair and consider its next steps – including whether more repairs or full replacement were needed. In line with its repairs policy, it should have also explained this to the resident and given a clear timeframe. Instead, the landlord left the resident in uncertainty about when the door would be fixed.
The landlord’s records show that it asked a contractor for a quote to replace the balcony door in January 2023 but took no further action until the resident raised the issue again 10 months later in November 2023. During this time, the resident received no updates and remained unclear about whether a repair or replacement would go ahead. The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report highlights how landlords can damage trust when they fail to follow through on repairs and leave residents to chase progress. In this case, the landlord’s inaction left the resident without clarity for a prolonged period and likely undermined her confidence in its handling of the repair.
According to the landlord’s records, it told the resident that the delay in replacing the balcony door was partly due to a dispute with the managing agent about who was responsible for the work. However, this was not a valid reason for the delay. The landlord was free to raise this issue with the managing agent if it felt it needed to. But it still had a responsibility to keep the resident’s home in good repair. It should have replaced the door as soon as reasonably possible and dealt with the dispute separately. The delay caused long disruption to the resident’s home and likely caused stress and frustration for the whole household.
The landlord also told the resident that access issues had stopped its operatives from taking measurements for the new door, which it said had caused delays. The resident disagreed in her stage 2 complaint, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her challenge or substantiated its claim.
The landlord should have either given examples of missed appointments or acknowledged that its earlier claim may have been wrong. This would have shown it had looked into the matter properly and taken responsibility where needed. Because it did not explain clearly, its response likely came across as neither meaningful nor sincere, especially given the length of the delay.
That said, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged some of the delays it had caused, including booking an incorrect appointment and its overall poor communication. This showed that it had accepted at least partial responsibility and made some effort to be transparent about service failings. However, this was not supported by a clear or full explanation of the remaining delay, which weakened the overall impact of the response.
The landlord replaced the balcony door on 24 January 2024, around 15 months after the resident first reported it was faulty. We have not seen evidence showing when the landlord offered compensation for this delay or how it calculated the amount. In response to our enquiries, the landlord said it offered the resident £350, but its records show that she rejected the offer on the grounds that it did not proportionately reflect the time the door had remained unsecured.
Government expectations set through standards such as the Decent Homes Standard and the HHSRS mean landlords should consider health and safety risks when managing repairs. These include the need for secure, weatherproof doors to reduce the risk of cold, damp, and intruders. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered these factors when dealing with the long-standing balcony door fault. The door was key to keeping the home warm, dry, and secure – especially important in a household with children.
Given the importance of this repair, the length of the delay, and the absence of evidence it assessed the potential health or safety risks, we do not consider that the landlord’s offer of £350 went far enough to put things right for the resident. While we acknowledge the landlord’s offer and eventual completion of the works, the redress did not reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, and lost faith in the service that the resident and her family likely experienced over a 15-month period.
The resident also told the landlord that the ongoing fault led to higher heating bills and damage to her curtains and flooring due to water coming in. While it is not our role to decide whether these items were damaged, and the landlord may not have been able to confirm the cause, it should still have taken these reports into account when considering redress. It could have asked for the resident’s energy bills to check whether heating costs had increased due to the faulty door. In addition, it could have considered referring the matter to its insurers, in line with its compensation policy.
We are aware the resident has since opened a case with the landlord’s insurers. However, this took place after the complaint we have investigated and does not affect our findings about how the landlord responded to the reported damage at the time.
Taken together, the issues in this section of the report show the landlord did not fully consider the health, safety, and financial effects of the fault when managing the repair of the balcony door or offering redress. Although it eventually carried out the works, it did not follow its own policies and procedures in a timely or appropriate way. These failings have led the Ombudsman to determine maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken balcony door.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above, where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident. We may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right.
In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to manage the repair of the balcony door in line with policy, in a timely way, or with proper regard to health and safety risks. In reaching this amount, we have considered the duration of the issue, the presence of children in the household, and the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the reported impacts.
On production of suitable evidence from the resident (e.g. energy bills showing increased usage) the landlord must reimburse the resident for any increased cost of heating the property during the period the balcony door remained unrepaired.
The landlord must confirm to the resident whether her reports of damage to curtains and flooring are being considered under its current insurance claim. If they are not, the landlord must either refer the matter to its insurers now or consider offering compensation directly. The landlord must write to the resident with a clear explanation of its position and the outcome of any review.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about her housing priority date

The resident’s concern related to the fact that her band B priority date did not reflect the several years she had already spent bidding in a lower band. The landlord explained that priority dates are linked to the date each banding level is awarded, rather than the total time spent on the housing register.
The landlord’s explanation was consistent with the wording of its allocations and lettings policy, which links banding priority to current need. It also gave the resident an opportunity to appeal its decision, which was also in line with its policy. In this context, there is no evidence of fault in how the landlord handled this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about her housing priority date.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a broken balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s query about her housing priority date.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £650 compensation already offered for the delay in addressing condensation and poor communication, if it has not already done so
  2. £648 room loss payment, covering the period from 1 November 2023 to 9 February 2024, if it has not already done so
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to manage the repair of the balcony door in line with policy, in a timely way, or with proper regard to health and safety risks
2. Write to the resident to confirm the status of the outstanding repairs related to the leak and extractor fans. If any repairs remain outstanding, it should provide her with an action plan and timescales for the repairs to be completed
3. Write to the resident, giving her 2 weeks to provide evidence of any increased costs of heating the property while the balcony door remained unrepaired. If the resident provides suitable evidence, such as energy bills showing a rise in usage, the landlord must reimburse her within a further 2 weeks. If no evidence is provided, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm that this matter is now closed
4. Confirm to the resident whether her reports of damage to curtains and flooring are being considered under its current insurance claim. If they are not, the landlord must either refer the matter to its insurers now or consider offering compensation directly. The landlord must write to the resident with a clear explanation of its position and the outcome of any review