London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202342278)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342278

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

1 September 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 issues with ventilation and insulation in the resident’s property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is the top flat in a 4-storey block. The property is within the block’s roof space.
On 9 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about temperatures in their flat being too high in summer and too low in winter. They said it was an issue with the fabric of their flat which the landlord had failed to address.
The resident made a further complaint on 20 July 2023. They were unhappy that a surveyor had missed an appointment that morning. They included a copy of their 9 June 2023 complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint the same day. It explained the surveyor had attended and tried to gain access at the agreed time. They had not got an answer when ringing the resident’s intercom so had left. It understood a new surveyor was contacting the resident to reschedule the appointment.
On 6 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handing of the reported issues in their property.
The landlord issued its final response on 20 February 2024. It said it had determined it was not possible to install a positive input ventilation system or extractor fans. It raised a work order to install vents and its repair panel who are responsible for signing off high cost works which was assessing the viability of the option. It had made a referral to its planned maintenance team to consider replacing the windows in the resident’s block. It apologised for failures in communications and offered £210 compensation for delays in resolution and distress/inconvenience.
On 27 August 2024 the resident confirmed they wanted us to investigate their complaint. They advised the landlord had not done anything to resolve their issues. The resident confirmed on 19 August 2025 that the issues were still unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their complaint and communication with us, the resident said the situation had a detrimental impact on their, and their family’s, health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we will give consideration to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
On 19 August 2025 the resident told us they wanted additional issues to be investigated as part of this case. These included a rodent infestation, blocked guttering, ASB matters, and the cleanliness of communal areas. These issues were not part of the complaint raised to the landlord with this case. Matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, feature in other complaints or are the subject of other cases with us will not form part of this investigation.
This investigation will only consider the matters that the landlord investigated and responded to in its stage 1 response of 20 July 2023 and final response of 20 February 2024.

The landlord’s handling of reported issues with ventilation and insulation in the resident’s property

The landlord has provided a repairs log for the resident’s property. Each repair order records the date an issue was raised, a completion ‘status’, the date it was completed, and short description. The descriptions are generally limited and provide a minimal level of information about the repair. It is not clear from the information provided in every repair record as to who reported the matter or when.
For each raised repair/work order, there is also insufficient information to adequately ascertain:
1. The full scope of the ordered work.
2. When and how many times the landlord attended to carry out the work.
3. What the landlord did when it attended to do the work.
4. Whether it had undertaken any post-completion inspections to confirm it had completed all the required work and that it had been effective.
We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The lack of information in the records provided by the landlord has impacted our ability to investigate this complaint. It is also evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. To understand what has taken place, we have relied on emails from the resident to the landlord. These emails detail dates the landlord and/or its contractor attended as well as what the resident was told about the works.
The landlord’s records show the resident had reported concerns about high temperatures in their flat in June 2022. The landlord raised a work order for a fault with the extractor fan on 18 July 2022. It closed this as ‘Complete No Access’ on 11 August 2022. It raised a second work order on 26 August 2022. The second order added that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. The landlord closed this as ‘Complete No Access’ on 28 September 2022.
In their complaint of 9 June 2023 the resident said:
1. They had been reporting issues with poor ventilation for many years.
2. Their extractor fans did not work. There was an issue with the fabric of the flat that the landlord needed to address.
3. They had asked the landlord to send a professional surveyor but it had not done this.
4. In summer the internal temperatures reached 35ºC and in winter they had to pay too much in heating to keep the property warm.
5. During extreme weather both they and their daughter had to stay at other people’s homes.
The landlord raised a work order on 29 June 2023 for an assessment of the property. The order states this assessment was needed due to poor ventilation and extreme heat variations. Given that it had been a year since the last recorded report about these issues, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an assessment. This allowed it to get an up-to-date understanding of the issues. However, it has not provided any evidence to explain why it took approximately 3 weeks (9 June 2023 to 29 June 2023) to raise this order. There is no evidence the landlord had taken any other action in relation to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 July 2023 to arrange the assessment. The earliest available date was 11 July 2023, but this was not suitable for the resident. The landlord and resident agreed an appointment of 20 July 2023.
The landlord’s repair policy states it aimed to complete repairs within 25 calendar days. Between 9 June 2023 and 3 July 2023 there were 24 calendar days. This increased to 32 days by the date of the first available appointment. The initial delays in raising a work order meant it was extremely unlikely the landlord could have ever met its target. This is evidence of poor case management by the landlord.
The landlord’s records show it marked the work order as ‘Complete No Access’ with a completed date of 18 July 2023. There is no evidence it had attended by that date. The lack of further information in the landlord’s records relating to the attempts made, or the details of any follow-on action is evidence of a lack of resolution and customer focus and poor record keeping.
On 20 July 2023 the resident made a further complaint. They said the surveyor had arrived and left before the agreed appointment time (9am) that morning. They said the surveyor left a voicemail at 8.49am saying they would return in 10 minutes but did not come back. The resident explained they turned their intercom off overnight. As part of their correspondence they also included a copy of their complaint raised on 9 June 2023 and said the landlord has still not resolved the matters.
There is no evidence the landlord had responded to the complaint made by the resident on 9 June 2023 prior to the resident re-raising the issue. The landlord issued a stage 1 response the same day. It explained its surveyor was not aware the resident turned off their intercom. The surveyor had tried the intercom when they arrived and 3 more times at around 9am. As there was no answer to the intercom or call back from the voicemail they had left, the surveyor had assumed no-one was in and had left.
In its response the landlord gave a clear explanation which addressed the specific matters raised in the 20 July 2023 complaint.
The landlord’s response also said the survey had been passed to a different surveyor. It said it trusted the new surveyor had been in touch to reschedule the visit.
The landlord’s records show on 1 August 2023 it re-raised the work order to assess the resident’s property. It carried out the assessment the same day. In the inspection report the assessor reported there was no mechanical ventilation (extractor fans) in the property. They also reported that trickle vents in the windows and vents in the walls were blocked/broken and not allowing any air flow. They noted that the resident had said the property was very hot in the summer and very cold during winter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023. They disputed the surveyor had tried their intercom at 9am on 20 July 2023 and said no-one had contacted them to re-arrange the survey. They said the stage 1 response had not addressed what they had complained about. They included another copy of their 9 June 2023 complaint. They confirmed a contractor had attended the previous day to do a mould inspection, but this was not the survey they were waiting for.
The landlord’s records show on 3 August 2023 it raised 2 work orders. The first was to repair the air vents that were not allowing air circulation. The landlord marked this order as cancelled, but there are no details about when it was cancelled or why. The failure to have any reliable information about the repair is evidence of poor record keeping. The second work order was to repair the trickle vents in the windows.
On 10 August 2023 the landlord and resident agreed a surveyor would attend on 16 August 2023. The landlord said it had made the surveyor aware of the resident’s concerns and would be best suited to assess the issues during their visit.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 September to ask if there had been any updates following the appointment with the surveyor. The landlord has not provided any evidence about whether the assessment took place, and if it did, what the findings were. The failure to have a record of a key stage in handling the resident’s complaint or, if it has a record, to provide it to this investigation is inappropriate and further evidence of poor record keeping.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord raised a work order for a contractor to meet with its surveyor at the resident’s property. The order stated the resident had been experiencing damp and mould issues. The landlord wanted to assess whether it was possible to fit a ‘dry master system’. This is a positive input ventilation unit which is designed to prevent condensation dampness in homes by introducing fresh, filtered air into the property.
On 11 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to their previous email. They said a contractor had contacted them about the dry master system. The contractor had told them this would be to reduce damp and mould. They said this would not address the issue of the property overheating.
The landlord responded the same day to apologise it had not replied. It said it would investigate and get back in touch as soon as possible. There is no evidence it did so. The resident sent a further chaser on 27 September 2023. The failure to respond in a timely manner and the need for the resident to chase the landlord is evidence of poor communications by the landlord.
The resident’s chaser of 27 September 2023 confirms the landlord attended on 22 September 2023 to repair the trickle vents. The resident said the contractor who attended told them the ventilators were sealed shut. The contractor also said no air was coming from any of them due to the way they had originally been installed on a sloping roof. The resident’s evidence also shows a contractor attended on 27 September 2023 to fit ventilation boxes. The contractor could not complete this work as there were tiles surrounding the resident’s flat. Neither of the visits to conduct the work were within the landlord’s stated repair timescale of 25 calendar days.
The resident chased the landlord again on 17 October 2023. They said a windows specialist had attended that day. The specialist said they could not do anything to fix the vents. The resident also said they felt the landlord was ignoring their initial complaint which had been about insulation at the property.
The landlord replied on 20 October 2023 to say it would discuss the case with its surveyor during the next week. It said it would contact the resident after the meeting.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 November 2023. They said they were unhappy about the landlord communicating to them that it would send a contractor to look at the extractor fans. This was on the basis the landlord had already sent several contractors who had said they could not fix the fans. The resident also wanted the landlord to understand there had been no working fans at the property since they moved in.
The communication from the resident and the lack of information and evidence from the landlord’s records about why further appointments to inspect the extractor fans had been arranged is evidence of poor case management, communication and record keeping.
The resident continued to say to the landlord in their correspondence that it has still not addressed the issue of the property overheating in summer and being freezing cold in winter. They said the landlord had said there was nothing it could do, and it had referred the matter to its planned maintenance team (the team who were considering replacement of windows at the property).
The resident said they had been waiting for more than a year and the landlord had not even confirmed there was a plan to replace the windows. It had not provided any timescales as to when the prospective window replacement might take place. The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to the resident.
Job sheets from the landlord’s contractor shows it attended on 13 November 2023 and 3 January 2024. Both occasions were in relation to extractor fans in the property. On 13 November 2023 the job sheet confirms there were no fans in the kitchen or bathroom. The contractor advised the work order would need to be changed to reflect that it would need to install new fans. On 3 January 2024 the job sheet recorded the resident had not been made aware how long the installation would take. They did not have sufficient time that day and the appointment had been rebooked for 8 January 2024. The failure to consider the impact of the works upon the resident and to communicate and plan effectively as a result is further evidence of poor communication, case management and failing to put its customer at the heart of its service provision by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2024 to ask it to confirm its contractor would attend that day. They also told the landlords they had not received a response to their email which was sent on 6 November 2024. They again raised the issue of inadequate insulation in the property.
On 15 January 2024 the resident sent a chaser as they had not received a response to their previous email. They also told the landlord no-one had attended on 8 January 2024 as had previously been arranged.
The landlord responded to the resident on 18 January 2024. It confirmed its contractor would attend on 24 January 2024. It did not provide any explanation for the missed appointment on 8 January 2024. It said it had passed the resident’s concerns to the stage 1 complaint handler.
The lack of explanation in respect to the missed appointment was further evidence of the poor customer service the resident had received and additional evidence of the continued lack of effective communication which was present throughout the complaint.
On 22 January 2024 the landlord logged the stage 2 escalation of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the escalation on 2 February 2024 and said its response would address missed appointments, poor communication, and the poor ventilation in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 February 2024. They said there had been 3 missed appointments to fit extractor fans. The appointment had been rescheduled for 8 February 2024. They were concerned their original complaint was still not being heard by the landlord. They said the issues in the flat were the result of bad insulation and design. They wanted the landlord to send a surveyor to confirm the flat was safe to live in.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 13 February 2024. They said contractors had attended on 8 February 2024. The contractors had been unable to install the extractor fans due to the tiles surrounding the property. They said the contractors had told them it was unlikely fans would ever get fitted as the landlord would need to erect scaffolding. The resident said since their complaint was made the landlord had done nothing to improve the ventilation or insulation.
The landlord responded the same day. It said it had spoken to the area surveyor who had recently inspected the property. The surveyor said the property was in a habitable state. It confirmed it had not been possible to fit a dry master system due to the layout of the property. It said because of this, it had therefore referred the matter to its planned maintenance team to consider window replacements.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 20 February 2024. It confirmed its contractor had attended on 27 September 2023. The contractor had determined it would not be possible to install a positive input ventilation unit or extractor fans. This was due to all the external walls being tile hung and the property having a flat roof.
It said it had raised a work order to install vents. It had passed this to its direct maintenance team and was awaiting authorisation to conduct the repair by its repairs panel. It said it would update the resident once the panel had made a decision. It explained the panel was assessing the details of the repair and quote for the works. The landlord said it was actively working to move the panel review process along. It reiterated that its surveyor had said the property was habitable and had made a referral to the planned maintenance team.
The landlord explained in its response it had taken into account how frustrating and upsetting it was for the resident and daughter to stay at other people’s homes during extreme weather as part of its considerations when calculating compensation. It said “communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly”. It explained it had briefed senior managers about the resident’s case and the associated issues. As a result of the complaint It had provided training to the staff involved. The landlord said it was “confident this will enhance customer service going forward”. It offered £210 compensation, which was made up of the following:
1. £50 for the delay to repairs/resolution of the complaint.
2. £80 for distress.
3. £80 for inconvenience.
Following the final response, the resident had further contact with the landlord on 26 and 28 June 2024. They said the issues in the property remained unresolved and the internal temperatures were getting dangerously high. They said the vents in the property still did not work and there were still no extractor fans. They advised no-one had contacted them about outstanding works and asked the landlord to confirm who had said the flat was habitable.
The resident sent a chaser to the landlord on 15 July 2024. The landlord responded and advised it had raised a work order for an electrician to assess the vents in the property. It is unclear why the landlord raised this work order, as there is no evidence the resident had any powered fans or vents in their property. The landlord did not provide a clear explanation to the resident about why it had decided to send an electrician to the property. This is evidence of poor case management.
The landlord’s evidence shows on 16 July 2024 it asked its surveyor to substantiate how it concluded the resident’s property was habitable. The surveyor explained they had attended on 16 August 2023 to look at damp and mould. There had been no evidence of either during the visit. The surveyor advised that, if the resident was reporting the property was getting too hot, then the landlord may need to fit additional roof vents and check the existing vents were working correctly.
It is reasonable to conclude from the surveyor’s response to the landlord that they were not fully aware of the resident’s concerns about the property overheating and being cold in the winter. On the basis the landlord’s complaint responses and course of action relied upon the expert opinion of its surveyors, it is unreasonable the extent of the issues being complained about were not considered.
On 26 July 2024 the resident confirmed the electrician had attended and left almost immediately as there was no electrical fault for them to fix. The resident again asked the landlord for the report showing their home was habitable. The landlord responded the same day to say it was still waiting for information from the surveyor, but that the resident could make a subject access request for the information.
This response is at odds with the landlord’s evidence, which shows by the time it was made, it had received the relevant information from the surveyor.
On 29 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to provide an update on the outstanding actions from its final response. Following this request, the landlord appointed an independent surveyor to attend the property and carry out a full survey.
It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have appointed an independent surveyor to assess the property. However, at the point it did so, the resident’s issues had been on-going for a significant period with the landlord unable to identify a lasting resolution. There was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have improved its service offering by appointing the independent surveyor at an earlier point in the overall process.
The landlord’s consultant attended on 12 August 2024. It advised the landlord the same day that the property was suffering from overheating and was incredibly uncomfortable. It confirmed there was no mechanical ventilation and the passive vents were ineffectual. It said the windows were at least 20-25 years old and there was likely no insulation in the property walls or ceiling. It recommended that:
1. The landlord replaced the windows with an emphasis on ‘reducing solar gains’ (reducing the heat caused by the sun).
2. The landlord should establish if there was any insulation. It could do that from the inside by cutting small openings into the walls and ceiling.
3. The landlord also needed to consider ventilation to ensure it complied with building regulations.
The consultant provided the landlord with its formal report on 23 August 2024. The report confirmed the provisional findings and recommendations given following the survey on 12 August 2024. There is no evidence the landlord has carried out the recommendations that were made. It confirmed to us on 20 August 2025 there were planned works to replace the windows. It did not have a specific timescale for this but forecast they would be complete by 25 December 2025.
In conclusion, it is clear from the available evidence that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of remedial works that were identified throughout the process. There was evidence of poor management of those remedial works and inadequate record keeping. There was poor communication throughout.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 requires landlords to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation during a tenancy. This obligation applies to most types of tenancy. Extremes of temperature (both hot or cold within the property) could render the property unfit for human habitation. The resident has made it clear to the landlord that there are issues with the temperature. The landlord’s own inspections have identified issues with heat.
There is no evidence the root cause of the issues complained about by the resident have been identified. In addition, there has been no movement on the works identified to make the situation better for the resident and to provide assurance the property is safe, as were identified in the survey from 12 August 2024. These are both significant failures by the landlord.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered £210 compensation in recognition of its failures and the frustration/inconvenience caused. In assessing this amount we acknowledge the landlord has identified some of its failings and took actions following its complaints process which were intended to put things right. However, the amount offered in compensation is typical of an offer we would make using our remedies guidance for a comparatively minor failing. In this instance, the offer was not proportionate to the level of failing and did not reflect the repeated instances of poor communication and service delivery. Furthermore, the matter remains unresolved and the landlord has not taken steps to make the situation better using the options identified to it following its complaint responses.
The failings identified in this case and the landlord’s inability to put things right for the resident through remedial actions and an appropriate level of compensation, lead to a determination of severe maladministration.
The impact on the resident has been long lasting, starting from their first reports of overheating and cold in June 2022 through to the current date. In addition, the resident has been unable to use their property during periods of excessive high or low internal temperatures. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of issues with ventilation and insulation in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

After receiving the resident’s complaint on 9 June 2023, the landlord told them on 16 June 2023 it had passed the matters to its maintenance team. It did not clarify whether it was treating the matters raised by the resident as a complaint or a repair issue. This was not in line with its complaint policy which says it will log a complaint or provide a detailed explanation why it is not accepting the complaint.
The resident chased the landlord on 20 and 26 June 2023. The landlord told them on 28 June 2023 its complaint team had closed the complaint. It said there was already a case open with a different department who were dealing with the issues the resident had reported.
Although the landlord had said it had passed the matter to a different department it did not make it clear whether it was treating the matter as a complaint or service request. The lack of clarity in its communications was unreasonable.
The evidence shows the resident made their reports via the landlord’s online complaint form. In these circumstances, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not treat the resident’s reports as a complaint. Furthermore, it was clear from the resident’s report that they were making an expression of dissatisfaction.
The evidence shows the landlord should have logged a complaint on 9 June 2023. The failure to so meant the landlord took too long to log the complaint and it was not in accordance with its complaint policy.
The landlord complaint policy states it will investigate all elements of a complaint. The landlord had 10 working days to issue its stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns about it having not resolved the issues raised on 9 June 2023. This was a missed opportunity to confirm if it had investigated these matters or not. If so, if could have explained what actions, if any, it had already taken or was intending to take resolve the complaint. If not, as was the case, the resident could reasonably have expected the landlord to include the matters in its response. The failure to do so was against its complaints policy and unreasonable.
As the resident had complained about the landlord missing a survey appointment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also checked if its surveyor had arranged a new appointment. There is no evidence it did this. To improve its service offer, it could have used the available 10 working days to respond to include these details. The failure to do so is indicative of the poor customer service the resident received throughout the complaints process.
The resident requested the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 6 November 2023. The landlord logged the escalation on 22 January 2024. It sent its final response on 20 February 2024. There were 74 working days between the resident’s request and the landlord issuing the final response. This was outside the landlord’s complaint policy timescale of 20 working days.
The landlord’s stage 2 investigation did identify learning and acknowledged failures in its handling of the issues at the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered and responded to any of the resident’s concerns about insulation, or the design of the property. This failure to fully investigate the resident’s complaint meant it was not possible for the landlord to provide a full and satisfactory resolution.
The landlord’s delays in handling the complaint and the lack of information answering the substantive points were inconvenient and frustrating to the resident. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged or explained its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s delay in investigating the resident’s complaint (over both stages) was significant. There is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable.
For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reported issues with ventilation and insulation in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,650. This comprises:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reported ventilation and insulation issues.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord may deduct from these amounts any sums awarded during its complaints process. The landlord must provide evidence of any payments that it had previously made.
3. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
4. Instruct a survey and report of the property by an appropriately qualified person. The inspection should determine whether there are any issues in the property that could be considered a hazard as identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It should also identify any other risks to the health and safety of the occupants and clarify if the property complies with building regulations. This would be in line with recommendations from the consultant’s report of 23 August 2024.
5. The inspection report must include:
  1. Full details of what had been inspected and the findings reached.
  2. If it has identified any required remedial works or repairs.
  3. If so, a proposed timescale for those works to be completed.
  4. Date-stamped photographs to evidence the inspection.
6. Carry out an intrusive survey to determine if there is any insulation in the walls and ceilings. This is one of the recommendations from the consultant’s report of 23 August 2024.
7. If there is no insulation in the property or the level is insufficient, determine what works would be required to sufficiently insulate the property.
8. Assess and determine what works would be required to improve the ventilation in the property and bring it in line with current standards. This includes re-considering whether it would be possible to install a positive input ventilation system. This is also one of the recommendations from the consultant’s report of 23 August 2024.
9. Provide us and the resident with a time-specific action plan for when it will replace the resident’s windows. If it is not fitting windows that will reduce solar gains it must explain why it is not following its consultant’s recommendation.
The landlord must within 6 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Provide us and the resident with a report detailing all the works or repairs it has identified after completing the orders above. It must confirm whether it intends to complete each identified item. If there any items it does not intend to complete it must clearly explain why for each item.
2. For the works or repairs it will complete, it must provide us and the resident with a schedule of works. The schedule must clearly detail the scope of all works, the intended start date, and the projected timeframes for completion.
3. As part of its planning, it must review whether it would be appropriate to move the resident to another property, or to stay in situ. A move of property could either be temporary while works/repairs are taking place or permanent. The landlord must provide us and the resident with its decision, explaining what factors it has considered and how its decision is in line with any relevant policies or procedure.
The landlord must within 12 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Start the works it had outlined in its schedule of works.
2. If the landlord is unable to start the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for the works to start, or agree on an alternative course of action which resolves the matter to the resident’s satisfaction.