Home Group Limited (202443200)

Decision
Case ID	202443200
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. The resident has complained about damp and mould, particularly concerns that the landlord has not addressed the underlying cause, including ongoing flooding in his garden. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of flooding and a leak from an underground pipe in his garden.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding and a leak from an underground pipe in his garden.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord delayed carrying out inspections and raising recommended follow‑on works and was slow to progress the required repairs. This resulted in unreasonable delays in completing the necessary remedial works.

Flooding and underground pipe

5. The landlord delayed carrying out inspections and raising the recommended follow‑on works, despite being aware that external flooding was contributing to internal damp issues. It also failed to progress necessary drainage works, meaning a lasting resolution for the flooding has still not been achieved more than 3 years later.

Complaint handling

6. There were delays in the landlord’s responses throughout the complaint process, including a significant delay in issuing its second stage 1 response. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the delays and took reasonable steps to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,062.50 made up as follows: £1,200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his reports of damp and mould. £862.50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his reports of flooding and a leak from an underground pipe. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 10 June 2026
3	Post inspection order – porch The landlord must consider the recommendations made by its surveyors on 27 February 2025 and 22 April 2026 regarding installation of a heat source in the porch area.   The landlord must write to both us and the resident by the due date, setting out:   An update on its current position regarding the installation of a heat source in the porch. An action plan outlining the steps it intends to take, with anticipated timescales, to address the condensation issues in this area (If the landlord decides not to install a heat source, it must set out the alternative remedy it proposes to resolve the issue).	No later than 10 June 2026
4	Starting the works order – drainage The landlord must take all steps to ensure the drainage works that have been committed to are started no later than the due date.   If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 10 June 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to confirm which re‑pointing issues remain outstanding and ensure these are addressed in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
It is recommended that the landlord re-provide the resident with the contact details of its insurer and clear guidance on how to submit a claim for his damaged belongings.
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £450 previously offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he was dissatisfied with the damp and mould inspection recently carried out because no moisture testing had taken place. He said he felt the landlord was covering up the mould rather than treating it correctly and asked it to address the underlying cause of the problem.
18 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained it had started work to treat the affected areas in October 2023 and a further inspection took place in November 2023, after which additional works were raised to address the damp and mould. It said that it had fulfilled all actions relating to the resident’s complaint and agreed to issue a £100 decorating voucher.
2 February 2024	The resident made a further complaint to the landlord. He said he wanted the complaint reopened because the porch continued to experience leaks and the damp and mould team had previously advised that there may be a structural issue with the property. He also said he felt that each time he reported a leak, the landlord addressed it in isolation rather than considering the wider underlying problem.
18 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that an inspection carried out in February 2024 found no structural issues with the property and that it had isolated the leak to the porch, which it had repaired. It also set out a timeline of events relating to damp and mould and flooding related issues. It said there was no rising damp from beneath the floor and that it had completed all repairs it considered necessary to address the damp. The landlord identified several service failings and offered £845 in compensation in recognition of those failings and the distress and inconvenience caused.
18 December 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He stated that he believed water was leaking beneath his home from an underground pipe that had been damaged during previous repairs. He said he felt this was causing damp to rise within the property. He asked the landlord to repair the underground pipe and to inspect beneath his floorboards. He also reported recent health issues, which he believed were linked to the damp conditions.
3 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had correctly investigated and responded to the complaint at stage 1 and confirmed that it had completed all damp‑related works, with no further repairs required. It explained that, because the resident disputed this and felt the root cause of the damp and mould had not been resolved, it would complete a further inspection. It increased its overall compensation offer to £1,745 in recognition of poor communication, shortcomings in complaint handling, and the disruption, time, and effort experienced by the resident.
3 February 2025	After receiving the stage 2 response, the resident queried the level of compensation offered at stage 1. In response, the landlord said it would increase its overall compensation offer to £1,875. It also explained that it understood that an inspection had gone ahead on 30 January 2025 and that further works were required. The landlord said it would amend its final response to reflect the updated information from the inspection.
11 March 2025	The landlord contacted the resident and offered a further £300 in compensation for disruption and the time and effort spent chasing repair completion, increasing its total compensation offer to £2,175.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said damp and mould was an ongoing issue and the landlord’s compensation offer did not reflect the impact of the situation or the losses he had experienced.
16 April 2026	During his contact with us, the resident said the damp and mould issues and the drainage issue in his garden remained unresolved. As an outcome, he said he wanted the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs it had previously promised. He also asked us to review the level of compensation he had been offered.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident first reported damp and mould affecting his property on 27 September 2023, explaining that he had damp patches in his bedroom and porch, as well as mould in his bathroom, on his furnishings and personal belongings. The landlord’s records do not show when it carried out an inspection or what the outcome was, highlighting gaps in its record‑keeping.
8. On 11 October 2023, the landlord raised several repairs, including works to the exterior of the porch, mould treatment, installation of an extractor fan, and re‑plastering. There were some access issues that delayed the re-plastering. However, aside from the exterior porch repairs, which the landlord completed within timescale, it failed to meet its 14-day responsive repair timescale for the other repairs raised. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for progress.
9. In his complaint on 19 October 2023, the resident said he believed the initial inspection was insufficient because no moisture testing was carried out. In response, the landlord reasonably arranged a further inspection on 8 November 2023.During this visit, the surveyor identified high humidity and inadequate ventilationthroughout the property and provided appropriate advice on managing these issues to reduce mould growth.
10. Following the inspection, the landlord also raised external repointing works and attended on 23 November 2023, where it identified that external drainage issues were affecting the brickwork and contributing to water ingress (assessed below as part of flooding-related issues). The findings from the second inspection indicate that the landlord should have carried out a more thorough assessment earlier, which would have allowed it to provide appropriate advice sooner and identify the external contributing factors at an earlier stage.
11. On 22 January 2024, the resident reported a strong smell of damp and mould from his carpets. However, due to gaps in the landlord’s records, it is unclear how it responded, if at all. On 31 January 2024, the resident reported a leak from his porch and said damp and mould were returning throughout the property. The landlord raised a 24-hour damp and mould inspection, but did not attend until 28 February 2024, 28 days later, significantly exceeding the timescale it had assigned. During the visit, the landlord identified condensation in the porch rather than a leak and lifted floorboards to check for leaks or excess moisture, finding none. However, it did not complete a full damp and mould inspection, which was inappropriate given it had assessed the matter as high risk.
12. Between 11 March and 23 April 2024, the landlord delayed booking the inspection despite repeated requests from the resident. It said the resident needed to lift his carpets to allow inspection beneath the flooring but later agreed to lift the carpet as a gesture of goodwill. While the landlord’s published guidance states that residents are responsible for carpets and flooring, it was appropriate for the landlord to exercise discretion given the circumstances. However, it should have made this decision sooner.
13. The landlord arranged inspections for 9 May 2024, which the surveyor did not attend, and for 13 June 2024, when there was no access. Even allowing for the missed access, the landlord took an excessive amount of time to complete the inspection. It did not do so until 16 July 2024, more than 5 months after the resident’s initial report. This delay was unreasonable, as damp and mould are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and should be treated with urgency due to the potential health impact.
14. During the inspection, the surveyor identified a strong smell of damp within a kitchen unit, full guttering, poorly functioning extractor fans, empty brickwork, and high moisture readings. They recommended further remedial works, but there is no evidence that the landlord raised, progressed, or declined these recommendations, leaving the resident with unresolved issues.
15. After the resident chased updates on the damp and mould works and raised further concerns about damp beneath his flooring, the landlord attempted a further inspection on 22 August 2024. However, it was unable to complete the visit due to safety concerns arising at the property. A subsequent inspection took place on 9 September 2024, during which the surveyor identified the same issues and recommended the same remedial actions as those identified 2 months earlier. The landlord’s failure to progress the required works in a timely manner caused unnecessary delays in addressing the damp and mould, likely causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord completed the recommended remedial works between 17 September 2024 and 24 October 2024. On 25 November 2024, the resident reported that a damp smell persisted in a kitchen unit, the bedroom, and beneath the floors. The landlord stated that its surveyor would reattend to address these outstanding issues. However, there is no evidence that any further visit or inspection took place, which was unreasonable. In its stage 1 response on 18 December 2025, the landlord concluded that it had completed all possible repairs to resolve the damp. It did not, however, explain how it intended to address the issues the resident had continued to report. This left the resident with unresolved concerns and likely contributed to his decision to escalate the complaint.
17. In its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025, the landlord stated that it would complete a further inspection and arrange a specialist to check the brickwork. This was appropriate given the resident’s ongoing concerns. On 3 February 2025, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that an inspection had taken place on 30 January 2025, advising that damp was still present and further works were required. However, the landlord’s records do not detail what specific works were identified, which reflects poor record‑keeping. We have also seen no evidence that it appointed a specialist to inspect the brickwork, as stated in its final response.
18. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 27 February 2025. This confirmed that the bedroom wall was still wet, the kitchen wall had high moisture readings, and the porch was constructed from 2 layers of brick with no cavity. The surveyor recommended further works and investigations, including replastering, a sub‑floor inspection, and installing a radiator or electric heater in the porch. However, aside from the sub‑floor inspection completed on 31 March 2025 – which found no damp – the landlord did not raise any further repairs until 27 June 2025, 4 months after the inspection, and only after the resident repeatedly chased for action. This was unreasonable, particularly given the delays the resident had already experienced and the substantial works identified.
19. Between 2 July 2025 and 17 September 2025, the landlord completed extensive remedial works. These included carrying out mould washes and removing and replacing plaster, which required the full removal and refitting of the resident’s kitchen and treating the external brickwork. While these actions were positive, it took 2 years from the resident’s initial report for the landlord to properly identify and carry out the necessary remedial works. The resident continued to live in damp conditions throughout this time, causing him significant distress and inconvenience. While there were some mitigating factors, there were failings in the landlord’s actions throughout the timeline of our investigation which unreasonably prolonged the process and contributed to the overall delay.
20. Our spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” We expect landlords to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time, which the landlord in this case did not. Had it followed these recommendations, it might have prevented a service failure.
21. The resident told us that he has mental health difficulties and that the situation caused him significant distress. He also reported experiencing respiratory problems, which he attributed to the damp and mould, and said he had sought medical attention. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities and concerns. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for him to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
22. On 16 April 2026, the resident told us that mould had begun to re‑appear on the bathroom wall and that condensation issues persisted in the porch. He reported that the landlord had not installed a heat source in the porch and that some external repointing remained outstanding. We have seen no evidence that the landlord installed a heat source, as recommended at the February 2025 inspection. An order and recommendation have been made in relation to these matters.
23. When we requested an update, the landlord confirmed that it carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 22 April 2026 and found no signs of mould at the time of the visit. However, it recommended that the installation of a radiator in the porch area should be considered.
24. The resident told us his furnishings and personal belongings had been damaged by damp and mould. The landlord was aware of this during in its complaint investigation. In its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023, the landlord provided details of its liability insurance and explained how the resident could submit a claim. It repeated this information by email on 14 August 2024. This approach was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and was an appropriate response. Landlords are entitled to rely on their insurers to assess and determine liability for such claims and are not required to consider compensation directly outside of this process. The resident said he did not submit a claim as he was advised that this could not be pursued until the mould issue had been resolved. A recommendation has been made in relation to this matter.
25. On 11 March 2025, the landlord increased its overall compensation offer to £1,725 (excluding the amount awarded for complaint handling) for both the damp and mould and the leak from the garden pipe. As the breakdown provided only set out overall amounts for poor communication, distress and inconvenience, disruption, and time and effort, we have split the overall offer equally between the 2 issues, amounting to £862.50 each. We consider this a reasonable approach in the absence of a specific breakdown for each complaint point.
26. Given the further 6‑month delay in completing the remedial works following the landlord’s most recent compensation offer in March 2025, and the fact that some actions remain outstanding, we do not consider the £862.50 offered to adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this investigation. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation and acknowledgement of the impact on the resident has prevented a more serious finding of severe maladministration.
27. We consider an additional payment of £337.50 to be appropriate to recognise the further delays and to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £1,200. This amount has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards at this level where failures have accumulated over a prolonged period and have had a significant long‑term impact on the resident.
28. Since the events of the resident’s complaint, the landlord published a damp, mould and condensation policy in February 2026. This is a positive step and should help reduce the risk of similar issues occurring in the future. For this reason, we have not considered it necessary to make any orders or recommendations requiring the landlord to make additional policy improvements in this area.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding and a leak from an underground pipe in his garden
Finding	Maladministration

29. The resident first reported a drainage issue on 24 April 2023, explaining that his garden flooded whenever it rained. The landlord’s earliest documented response was on 30 October 2023, when it attended the property and identified that a burst pipe at a neighbouring property was causing the flooding. It appropriately advised the neighbouring private tenants to contact the water board, as the issue did not fall within its responsibility. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delay in responding. However, it was unreasonable for it to take around 6 months to take action, which significantly exceeded its 28-day responsive repair timescale.
30. Following a further visit on 31 October 2023, the landlord recorded the resident’s concern that it may have damaged an underground pipe while investigating the flooding the previous day. On 9 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor repaired the water supply pipe. The landlord’s records show that the water board attended on 17 November 2023 and found no evidence of a leak. A contractor also attended that day and carried out drainage investigations, including a dye test, concluding that groundwater was causing the flooding. These were reasonable actions despite the earlier delay.
31. During a visit on 23 November 2023, the landlord identified that a further garden inspection was required as flooding was affecting the brickwork and causing water ingress. However, it did not explain why this additional inspection was necessary, given that its contractor had already reasonably established the cause of the flooding. The landlord did not complete the inspection until 28 February 2024, 14 weeks after its previous visit, and only after the resident chased the matter on multiple occasions. This delay was unreasonable, particularly given that the landlord had already identified flooding was causing damage to the property. During the inspection, the surveyor identified a broken field drain that was flooding the garden. However, the landlord’s records show no evidence that it raised any follow‑on works, leaving the resident with ongoing and unresolved issues.
32. During further inspections on 16 July 2024 and 9 September 2024, the landlord recorded that a previously excavated hole in the garden had not been backfilled and remained full of water. It noted that this was contributing to damp inside the property. The landlord also recorded the resident’s concerns that the pipe at the bottom of the hole had not been repaired and that he wanted this resolved before it was filled. These records show the landlord was aware that incomplete works continued to cause external flooding and internal damp issues. Despite this, there is no evidence that it took prompt or effective action to fix the problem.
33. The landlord began follow‑on works on 3 October 2024. However, it closed the repair as incomplete on 6 November 2024, stating that specialist ground workers were required. On 21 November 2024, the landlord backfilled the hole in the garden with soil. In its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024, the landlord explained that it had checked with contractors who attended the previous year, who advised that the pipe was redundant and did not leak water beneath the property and therefore specialist works were not necessary. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of its contractors, gaps in its records mean it is not possible to verify this advice or confirm whether it properly addressed the ongoing flooding issues.
34. In his escalation request on 18 December 2024, the resident raised further concerns that the underground pipe was still leaking. He asked the landlord to reopen the hole and check whether the pipe had been properly repaired, explaining that his garden continued to flood during rainfall and that he was concerned this was contributing to internal damp. In its stage 2 response on 3 February 2025, the landlord stated that it had arranged a further garden inspection, which was appropriate given the resident’s concerns. Subsequent records indicate that that an inspection took place on 30 January 2025. However, due to gaps in the landlord’s records, we are unable to establish the surveyor’s findings or what, if any, actions were identified in relation to the garden. This lack of detail highlights poor record keeping.
35. The landlord completed a further inspection on 27 February 2025, after which the surveyor recommended exposing and repairing the external pipe and installing additional drainage to manage surface water. However, despite these clear recommendations, the landlord did not raise any further repairs until 30 June 2025, around 4 months later and only after the resident prompted it. This delay shows a lack of effective monitoring and oversight. Once the landlord identified the need for remedial works, it remained responsible for ensuring the matter progressed promptly. Its failure to do so contributed to prolonged uncertainty and avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
36. On 1 July 2025, the landlord attended the property and excavated test holes in the garden. It confirmed there was no evidence of a leaking underground pipe but identified a blocked gully that caused water to overflow onto the path and grass. A contractor attended on 23 July 2025 to jet the drains and carry out a CCTV survey, following which it recommended further repairs. The contractor completed these repairs on 7 August 2025.
37. While it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out investigations to rule out an underground leak, it failed to act on the surveyor’s earlier recommendation, made in February 2025, to install additional drainage. On 20 November 2025, the resident again reported flooding in his garden, suggesting a lasting and effective repair has not yet been achieved.
38. In March 2026, the resident informed us that his garden continued to flood during periods of rain. He also reported that, in February 2026, the landlord had visited with its contractor and told him it was awaiting a quote. When we requested an update, the landlord confirmed that it had planned works to install additional drainage and hardstanding to manage surface water, which it identified as the cause of the flooding rather than any below‑ground drainage issues. However, the landlord could not confirm a start date for the planned works. An order has therefore been made in relation to this matter.
39. Although a resolution is in progress, the landlord has not completed the necessary works more than 3 years after the resident’s initial report. There were failings in the landlord’s actions throughout the timeline of our investigation which have unreasonably prolonged this process.
40. We have considered that the landlord’s final compensation offer was £862.50 for the garden related failures. This amount is proportionate and consistent with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where service failures have had a significant impact on the resident. For this reason, we have not found it necessary to order any additional payments beyond those already offered. However, as the matter remains unresolved, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

41. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant version of the Code was published in March 2022. The stage 1 timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy differed from those in the Code.
42. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation.
43. There were delays throughout the complaints process. In the initial stage 1, the landlord took 7 working days to acknowledge the complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023, 42 working days after receiving the complaint. This resulted in an overall delay of 32 working days beyond its policy timescales.
44. After the resident made a further complaint on 2 February 2024, the landlord logged it as a new stage 1 complaint. It noted that the earlier complaint related to damp and mould, while the new concerns focused on a leak from the porch. Based on the information available at the time, it was appropriate for the landlord to open a new complaint to allow these issues to progress through the full 2‑stage complaints process. It is evident that additional concerns relating to damp and mould and the underground pipe were raised after the new complaint was logged, and the landlord appropriately addressed these matters within its subsequent complaint responses.
45. At stage 1, the landlord took 8 working days to acknowledge the complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024, 225 days after receiving the complaint, which significantly exceeded both its policy timescales and the requirements of the Code. Although the landlord maintained frequent contact with the resident during this period, there is no evidence that it formally extended the response timescale or explained the reasons for the delay. The landlord should have discussed the delay with the resident during its communications with him and provided a revised timescale. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
46. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the required 5 working days. However, it did not issue its response until 3 February 2025, 30 working days after the complaint was escalated. This again exceeded both its policy timescales and the requirements of the Code and resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for a response.
47. In its final response, the landlord stated that the inspection scheduled for 30 January 2025 had been cancelled. However, immediately after issuing its response, it advised that it had received information confirming the inspection had gone ahead and that further works were required. The landlord said it would amend its final response to reflect this updated information. We have seen no evidence that it did so. This was unreasonable, as it failed to provide the resident with clear and accurate information about the outcome of the inspection or what further action it intended to take, which likely caused him uncertainty.
48. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation in its complaint responses, increasing the award to £450 for complaint handling in its final response. This offer was substantial and exceeded the level of award we would expect in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident

Learning

49. The landlord’s complaint responses – particularly the stage 1 response dated 18 December 2024 – could have been clearer about the outcome of the complaint. Instead of setting out lengthy timelines, the landlord should focus on clearly explaining its decision, the reasons for that decision, and how it intends to address any outstanding issues.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

50. The landlord’s record‑keeping was generally good, and it provided detailed repair records. However, some gaps were identified, including missing notes from certain inspections. In addition, some events referenced in the landlord’s complaint responses – such as discussions with contractors – were not reflected in its documented records. This suggests there may be some areas where the landlord could strengthen its record‑keeping processes.

Communication

51. There was a lack of effective proactive communication from the landlord. It did not keep the resident informed of the progress of the repairs as frequently as it should have, causing him to chase and request updates, particularly after issuing its final response