Accent Housing Limited (202233159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233159

Accent Housing Limited

26 February 2024

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 17 February 2022. The property is a 2-bed ground floor flat.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that routine repairs must be completed within 28 days. It also says the landlord will:
1. Confirm when an appointment is made, and send reminders to the resident the day before it is due to carry out the work.
2. Advise residents if it is unable to keep an appointment.
3. Keep residents updated “every step of the way” until a repair is completed.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure says it will order a contractor to supply and apply a damp and mould kit if a resident identifies respiratory issues, and will contact the resident after 4 weeks to check this has been done. It also says that if a repair is outstanding after 4 weeks, it will escalate the repair to a manager for prompt action to be taken by a contractor.
At the time of this complaint, the landlord had a 3-stage complaints process. Its policy said it was required to issue a response within 5 working days for each stage.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that when a resident’s belongings are damaged as a result of it not meeting its repair obligations, it will consider compensation. The procedure says it must inspect the damage, calculate an estimate of the value, and offer the value as a compensation payment. It says it can refer the resident to their own contents insurance rather than offering compensation if it can prove it followed its repair standards.

Summary of events

On 30 November 2022, the resident reported problems with the living room windows, including drafts, a broken latch, and mould around the windows.
On 7 December 2022, a contractor attended the property and advised that a new window mechanism was needed. The landlord has provided no evidence of any further action being taken at that stage.
On 11 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update regarding the windows. He said there had been a lot of mould in the living room and his daughter’s room, which he had to clean every week. The landlord said the surveyor had attended, but nobody was home. The landlord has provided no records to show the appointment being booked, the resident being made aware of any appointment, a surveyor attending, or any attempts being made to contact the resident or leave a card.
On 16 January 2023, the resident chased an update on the window repair. The following day, the landlord told the resident the repair had not yet been approved, and was awaiting line manager sign off.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor told the landlord they had tried to attend twice. There is no evidence of this in the landlord’s records. The landlord asked the resident if he could provide access to the surveyor the following day to inspect the damp and mould.
On 24 January 2023, the surveyor carried out the inspection. The surveyor identified damp and mould in the bedroom, lounge, and bathroom. They identified ventilation issues as the cause, and said the landlord would need to resolve the issue by having the resident relocate a tumble dryer, putting new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and having all the mould treated with a mould kit once the ceiling and walls in the shower were dry.
On 1 February 2023, the resident chased an update on the windows. The landlord spoke to the contractor, who advised that there was an 8 to 10 week wait for the relevant parts. The landlord’s records show it tried to call the resident back, but there was no answer. It has provided no evidence of trying to contact the resident by other means.
On 3 February 2023, the resident called the landlord to chase an update on works following the survey. On 6 February 2023, the landlord noticed that it had not raised any repairs following the survey. It then logged repairs for the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, replacement double glazing in the bedroom, and an additional radiator in the lounge.
On 10 February 2023, the resident and landlord discussed the various repairs. The resident raised concerns about the damp and mould, and said his daughter was persistently ill. He said a window appointment that week was missed by the contractor, that he was unhappy with the way the previous visit was handled, and he wanted a surveyor to inspect with the contractor.
The landlord said that on 13 February 2023, an operative confirmed that both extractor fans should be replaced, and ordered new fans.
The landlord said that on 15 February 2023, an operative attended to measure the bedroom windows. The resident told the landlord that no operative had attended. The landlord has provided no evidence of any follow-up at that stage.
On 21 February 2023, the resident made a complaint. He said:
1. After reporting issues with the window in his daughter’s bedroom, the surveyor who attended failed to measure the window. There was then no follow-up appointment and the issue was ongoing.
2. The extractor fans in the property had failed, which should have been picked up in the void checks. New fans had been ordered, but there had been no follow-up appointment.
3. Issues with the window mechanism in the living room had been ongoing since December 2022.
4. The ongoing repair issues were contributing to damp and mould within the property, and he did not think the landlord was taking the issues seriously.
On 28 February 2023, the resident chased up a response from the landlord.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord contacted its contractor for updates. The contractor advised that parts had not yet arrived for 2 of the repairs, and it would contact the resident that day to provide an update. The following day, the landlord and resident discussed the issues. The resident emphasised that he was not happy with delays to the repairs. He told the landlord that the surveyor initially did not raise repairs, he had now been told the extractor fans would not be fixed until 21 March 2023, and he was particularly concerned about his daughter’s health.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord issued a complaint response. It said:
1. A surveyor had attended to inspect the damp and mould. A damp and mould kit had been delivered to the resident on 10 February 2023.
2. A replacement bedroom window had been ordered, with installation booked for 20 March 2023, and new extractor fans would be installed on 21 March 2023.
3. The living room window repair had been handed to its planned works team, as it was a specialist order.
4. The damp and mould had been caused by draughty windows and ventilation issues. Once the repairs had been completed, the resident could then use the damp and mould kit to clear off any traces of mould and stop it returning.
5. It accepted there had been poor communication regarding repairs.
On 8 and 9 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the repairs. He said an operative had attended on 8 March 2023 to measure up and take photos, despite this having already been done previously. He said the issues with mould were getting worse, and the corners of the carpets had since turned black. The landlord’s records say the operative was able to get one of the windows working, but that the other needed a new mechanism.
On 16 March 2023, the resident confirmed he wanted to escalate the complaint. The following day, the landlord told him that any damage from the mould would have to be claimed on his contents insurance.
On 18 March 2023, the landlord issued a works order for a mould wash. On 21 March 2023, the resident called the landlord. He said he had been told that the parts for the window were unavailable, but also that they had been ordered. He said he was frustrated with the constantly changing information and the delays in getting the repairs carried out.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord issued a further complaint response. It said:
1. It acknowledged that the living room window had needed repair for 4 months. The mechanism was both high cost and not readily available, so had been passed to the planned works team. Someone would contact him to book an appointment when the part arrived.
2. An engineer had attended to replace the bedroom window, but the double glazing unit did not fit. This was due to a profile behind the seals, which the initial operative was unaware of. As a result, incorrect measurements had been taken initially. New measurements had been taken, and a further appointment would be booked in.
3. It offered a £30 compensation payment for the delays in parts being available.
4. Any damage to possessions should be claimed via his contents insurance.
On 22 March 2023, the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 3. He said the tone of the stage 2 response, and the level of compensation offered, was unacceptable. He said the mould had gotten bad enough that he would need to redecorate his entire flat, and the bathroom floor was starting to subside due to the level of damp in the bathroom.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord issued a stage 3 complaint response. It said it recognised the delays in the repairs and offered £50 compensation. It told him to claim on his contents insurance for any damage to his possessions.
On 11 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about the repairs. He said the contractor due that day did not turn up, and said the parts needed were unavailable and in Germany. The following day, the landlord told the resident it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould.
On 13 April 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he had received the landlord’s stage 3 response, and the repairs had not been completed when promised.
On 14 April 2023, the resident spoke to the landlord about the repairs, and the landlord promised a call back. On 17 April 2023, the resident chased that call back. The landlord’s notes say a surveyor was to attend on 19 April 2023, but that the other surveyor should be updating the resident in the meantime.
On 18 April 2023, the landlord logged repairs for new vents on the doors and in cupboards. The same day, the resident contacted his MP. He said after the various initial delays, he had been told that day that the works carried out by the contractor had not been completed correctly, meaning his complaint was being reopened and reinvestigated.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord recorded that an incorrect type of extractor fan had been fitted by the contractor, and that the contractor had left the resident with a mould kit rather than carrying out a mould wash as instructed.
The landlord’s logs said that it carried out a mould wash of the bedroom, lounge, and bathroom, and installed new extractor fans, on 3 May 2023. On the same day, the landlord provided an update on the living room windows. It said it had to order new parts and that, due to supply availability, they were due to arrive on 27 May 2023, with installation booked for 30 May 2023. It also told the resident it had booked a mould wash for 15 May 2023.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord issued an amended stage 3 response. It said:
1. It acknowledged there had been delays in repairing the bedroom window. The new glass was due to be fitted on 30 May 2023.
2. The extractor fans had been tested as part of the voids process, and were in working order when the resident moved into the property. The replacement fans were the incorrect type, and the correct type were installed on 3 May 2023.
3. Its contractors now had the mechanism to repair the living room window, and the repair was booked for 30 May 2023. The delay was caused by difficulty in sourcing parts, though it acknowledged that more needed to be done regarding timescales for sourcing parts.
4. It had previously provided a mould kit which had not been used by the resident, and carried out a mould wash on 3 May 2023.
5. It offered £250 compensation for damage to the resident’s bed, and for delays in the repairs.
On the same day, the resident told the landlord he would only accept the compensation to resolve the complaint if the landlord took a series of other actions, including removing mould damaged items from the property and carrying out an industrial carpet clean to remove any mould.
On 30 May 2023, the landlord carried out the relevant repairs. Its records say it arranged for the removal of the large items, had the carpets cleaned, and paid the resident the £250 compensation.
Since that date, the Ombudsman has asked the resident to confirm whether or not he wishes to pursue his complaint. However, as the resident has not responded to confirm he wishes to withdraw his complaint, the Ombudsman has proceeded with its investigation.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – living room window

The resident reported issues with the living room window on 30 November 2022. The landlord incorrectly recorded that it was raised on 2 December 2022. It booked an inspection for 7 December 2022, after which it has provided no evidence of any action being taken for over a month. When chased for an update, the landlord said that a surveyor had attended the property and not been given access. However, the landlord has provided no evidence of this, or that the resident was made aware of any such appointment.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days, that it will let the resident know the date for any appointments, and that it will send reminder messages to the resident the day before an appointment. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it took any of those steps, and in the absence of any such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord took any action at that stage. The only evidence provided by the landlord shows that after initially attending to inspect the window, it took no action for over a month. The next action was chasing the contractor for an update, which was as a result of the resident chasing the landlord for an update, rather than on the landlord’s own initiative.
Responsibility for arranging the repairs lay with the landlord, not its contractors, and the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to monitor repair timescales and proactively chase its contractors for updates when there are delays, so that it can provide meaningful updates to its residents. It has provided no evidence of doing so, which was a failing on its part.
It was only after the resident made a complaint that the landlord told him that the mechanism needed to repair the window was expensive and difficult to source, so had been passed to its planned works team. The landlord gave the resident no indication of timescales for the repair.
The landlord’s records show an operative attended the property on 8 March 2023, and that while they were able to get one window working, they could not get the second window working as a new mechanism was needed. The landlord told the resident it would take a further 4 weeks for the parts to arrive. The records show the part did not arrive until much later, and the works were completed on 30 May 2023.
It is apparent from the landlord’s records that there were difficulties in obtaining the relevant parts. Its contractors told it at the start of February 2023 that there was an 8 to 10 week lead time to get the part, and that it was on week 8 at that point. The notes from after the appointment in March 2023 also state that the contractors were unable to find the parts, and had been to all suppliers. A landlord is not responsible for delays which are outside of its control, such as an inability to obtain parts which are needed for the repair. However, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that difficulty sourcing the parts was the sole reason for the delay. It has provided no records of when the part was ordered, or any attempts to chase up when the parts would be available.
When parts are needed, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide evidence that it was actively chasing its contractors for updates on when the parts would be available and the steps taken to source them, so it could update the resident accordingly. The landlord’s evidence does not show it did so. The evidence shows no attempts to chase up the parts or monitor the repair in any way, save for the occasions when the resident chased the repair or made a complaint. The records also show a failure to notify the resident when contractors would not be attending booked appointments, and a lack of any supervision of the repairs or its contractors. The records show the landlord failed to take ownership of the repair, to in any way monitor its progress, or to take any action without being chased by the resident. This was inappropriate, and out of line with both its repairs policy and standard industry practice.
The landlord was required to complete this repair within 28 days. Instead, it took 6 months. Throughout that 6 months, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the resident with any meaningful updates, or to take any action unless the resident chased it. Its handling of this repair was unreasonable and inappropriate.

Repairs – bedroom window

The landlord was aware of issues with the bedroom window since at least 11 January 2023. It is unclear whether it was aware before then, as it had referred to a surveyor trying to attend to property, but having been denied access. There is no evidence of any such appointment or access attempt in the landlord’s repair logs.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on 24 January 2023. This was within a reasonable timescale. However, the landlord then failed to raise any repairs until 6 February 2023, which was in response to the resident chasing for an update. There was then a dispute as to whether or not an operative attended on 15 February 2023. The landlord’s logs say that the operative attended and measured the window. The resident told the landlord on that day that no operative attended. The landlord has provided no evidence that an appointment was booked that day, or that the operative actually attended. It has also provided no evidence of investigating the resident’s report that no operative had attended.
The landlord fitted 1 new window unit in the bedroom on 20 March 2023. It was unable to fit the second unit as incorrect measurements had been taken by its contractor. The contractor was booked for a follow-up appointment on 11 April 2023, and the landlord’s notes said the second window had not yet been ordered at that time. The repair was then completed on 30 May 2023.
The landlord’s records show there was a 3-week lead time on the new double glazing units. It took more than 4 months for the repair to be completed. The landlord’s records show there were delays in raising the repairs following the inspection, delays caused by an operative taking incorrect measurements, and delays in ordering the replacement double glazing unit after further measurements were taken. These were unreasonable and avoidable delays, and the landlord’s handling of this repair was inappropriate.

Repairs – extractor fans

The landlord became aware that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were no longer working from 24 January 2023. It did not raise any repairs until 6 February 2023. It booked a repair appointment for 13 February 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe. Its engineer notes say both fans needed to be replaced. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action prior to the resident’s complaint.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord booked a repair appointment for 21 March 2023. This was almost 2 months after the landlord became aware the extractor fans needed to be replaced. The contractors at that appointment installed the wrong type of extractor fans, which the landlord discovered a month later. It then installed the correct extractor fans on 3 May 2023. The landlord was required to complete this repair within 28 days under its repairs policy. It did not do so, and has provided no reasonable explanation for the delay. The handling of this repair was therefore unreasonable and inappropriate.

Repairs – damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says that if disrepair causing damp and mould is not resolved within 28 days, the repair will be escalated to a manager for prompt action to be taken by a contractor. The landlord’s records do not show that the landlord took that approach in this case.
The resident reported mould around the defective living room window on 30 November 2022. He then reported damp and mould in both the living room and his daughter’s bedroom on 11 January 2023. The landlord arranged a survey on 24 January 2023, which identified damp and mould in 2 bedrooms, the living room, and the bathroom. The surveyor said the causes were draughty windows and broken extractor fans, as well as a dryer in the hallway. The landlord’s notes show the resident moved the dryer to a different location at the landlord’s request.
The repairs to resolve the damp and mould were unreasonably delayed. While it provided a damp and mould kit on 10 February 2023, it said in its complaint response that this was to be used after the repairs were completed. The landlord was aware that the repair issues were causing damp and mould, but did not effectively monitor the repairs. It has also provided no evidence of escalating the repairs to a manager, as was required under its policy. While waiting for the repairs to go ahead, it provided a damp and mould kit that would not be used until the repairs had been carried out, and took no steps to deal with the mould in the meantime until it booked a mould wash in March 2023. This was months after the damp and mould had been reported. The mould wash did not take place for a further 6 weeks after the works order was raised, and a further mould wash had to be booked for 2 weeks later as the contractors did not carry out a mould wash in all of the affected areas.
The resident said the mould was in his daughter’s bedroom, and raised concerns about the effect the damp and mould was having on her health, describing her as ‘persistently ill’. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took those concerns seriously.
When the resident reported that his belongings had been damaged by the mould, the landlord repeatedly told him to claim on his contents insurance. This was inappropriate. Given the resident’s reports that the items were damaged because the landlord had not met its repair obligations, the landlord was required to consider those losses under its compensation policy. It was only entitled to refer the resident to his contents insurer if it could prove it had met its repair obligations.
The landlord has not shown it carried out any inspection of the items or considered whether the damage was caused by a failure to meet its repair obligations. It was not therefore appropriate for it to refer the resident to his contents insurance. While the landlord offered some compensation for the resident’s bed as part of its second stage 3 response, this was only after persistently telling the resident he would have to claim on his contents insurance, and only considered 1 of the items in question. This was therefore insufficient.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was unreasonable and inappropriate.

Repairs – summary

The landlord acknowledged some service failures, and offered £250 compensation to the resident. That £250 included compensation for the resident’s bed, which was damaged by the mould. The Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation is sufficient redress for the failings identified in this investigation.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
As set out above, there have been repeated failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs. It failed to carry out any of the repairs considered as part of this investigation within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Its records show a failure to take ownership of the repairs, to monitor any timescales for the repairs, to chase up the contractors, or to take any further action beyond an initial inspection without the resident chasing for updates. It has provided no evidence of informing the resident when repairs were booked, letting him know in advance if appointments would not be going ahead, or providing updates on the repairs. It also incorrectly advised him to claim for the damage to his belongings on his contents insurance, despite that not being in line with its own compensation policy. Those failings amount to maladministration.
The resident has referred to the impact the landlord’s failings had on his daughter’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. That would be a matter for the courts, and the Ombudsman does not award damages for personal injury in the way that a court does. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident, including the distress his concerns about his daughter’s health would inevitably cause him.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, and for which the landlord has not done enough to put things right. For the avoidance of doubt, this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord for distress and inconvenience as part of the complaints process, but is not inclusive of the proportion of the compensation that was for damage to the resident’s bed.
As the landlord incorrectly referred the resident to his contents insurance on multiple occasions, and only mentioned 1 of the damaged items in its final complaint response, the Ombudsman does not consider it has made a reasonable offer of compensation for the items damaged as a result of the disrepair. The landlord must therefore also assess the value of the damaged items, and make the resident a reasonable offer of compensation for those damaged items in line with its compensation policy. The landlord must also set out how it has calculated the offer when that offer is made. For the avoidance of doubt, if the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s revised offer for the damaged items, that would be a new complaint which would need to go through the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could consider whether the offer was reasonable, rather than a continuation of this complaint.

Record keeping

Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service, as it allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, and provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not limited to, resident repair reports, attendances by contractors, notes of inspections, and actions taken as a result of an inspection.
In this case, the landlord has provided limited repair records. Its surveyor notes and internal correspondence refer to various works and appointments which are not mentioned in its repair logs. While a surveyor referred to trying to attend the property and not being given access, the landlord has provided no records of any appointments being booked, any contact making the resident aware of the appointments, or any attempts by the surveyor to attend the property, contact the resident, or leave any cards if access was not provided.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it does not have any records of investigations into a number of the repairs, any copies of survey reports, or any notes from employees or contractors regarding the repairs. The landlord’s record keeping is wholly inadequate, and has also affected the Ombudsman’s investigation into this complaint. Its poor record keeping and poor information management amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out repairs in a reasonable timescale, or in line with its own policies. It took no ownership of the repairs, failed to update the resident unless he chased for an update, and repeatedly incorrectly told the resident to claim for damaged items on his contents insurance, despite that not being in line with its policies. Its offer of compensation was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair records are incomplete with missing information related to reports, details of appointments and inspections, and details of repairs. Its poor record keeping contributed to the repair failings identified in this report.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the compensation for distress and inconvenience offered as part of the landlord’s complaints process, but is not inclusive of the part of the compensation which related to the resident’s damaged bed.
3. Write to the resident to request evidence of the damage to his belongings as a result of the damp and mould. The landlord must then make an offer of compensation for the damaged belongings in line with its compensation procedure within 6 weeks of the date of this report. If the resident does not provide further evidence, the landlord must make an offer based on the information it already holds. If it considers that no further compensation is due, it must set out its reasoning in its letter to the resident. The landlord must provide a copy of the relevant letters to the Ombudsman.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the way it handled the repairs and record keeping in this case to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord must review the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs, October 2022 Spotlight Report on damp and mould, and May 2023 Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management, and ensure its staff are aware of them. As a minimum, the review should include consideration of:
1. The landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to repairs, including reports of damp and mould, both before and after inspections are carried out.
2. The processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale.
3. The processes and procedures it has in place to monitor repairs that are with its contractors, and chase updates when repairs have not been completed.
4. The processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that residents are provided with regular updates on repairs.
5. The processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping.
6. The training needs of its staff who deal with repairs, including those who consider requests for compensation for damage to items as a result of disrepair.
A copy of the resulting action plan must be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to ensure compliance with Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service to set out its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.