From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

City of Westminster Council (202327330)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327330

Westminster City Council

20 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Bathroom works between May 2023 and May 2024.
    2. The resident’s complaints.

Background

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses addressed several issues, including the resident’s request for secondary glazing, a replacement window, and repairs to the bathroom. The resident has confirmed that only matters related to the bathroom remain outstanding and that the landlord resolved the other issues. As such, we have not investigated the other repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses also reference repairs that are unrelated to her complaint, including work to her garden fence or wall. We have made minimal reference in this report to repairs not associated with the bathroom works. We have referenced the garden works as this formed part of a further complaint regarding the bathroom in 2024. However, the garden work does not form part of the investigation.
  3. The resident has said that the situation and landlord’s handling of works impacted her and her daughter’s mental health and wellbeing. We do not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. Her tenancy began in May 2022. The resident has a child who was under 5 at the time of the complaint. The bathroom had a bath with a rinsing aid attachment and 4 courses of tiles along the wall. The end of the bath was next to a window and the bathroom has 2 windows. We have considered two complaints about the bathroom addressed between July 2023 and May 2024.

Complaint 1

  1. The resident initially reported a broken bath panel and cracks in the wall above the bath on 2 May 2023. The landlord raised work orders; however, she wanted a surveyor to attend. Following a survey on 30 May 2023, the landlord informed her that her request for a shower would be an improvement, not a repair. Its notes suggest that she had asked for the bath to be turned which was not a repair.
  2. The landlord raised a separate work order to tile up to the ceiling on 20 June 2023 which it later put on hold due to the resident’s requests for a shower installation. She pursued her concerns on 12 July 2023 and added that its major works team, who attended to assess the bath renewal, had suggested that they could board up a window, tile it and convert the bath, or move the bath around.
  3. The resident also raised a complaint on 12 July 2023. She said that a surveyor visited but only one job she requested was on its system. She said there was an extractor fan over her bath that she felt was dangerous and it was due to relocate. She had problems with water damage in her bathroom. She asked for a shower due to water shortages and energy efficiency and said it had not updated her.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023, the landlord said it was due to relocate the ceiling extractor fan that day and that it intended to complete work to rotate the bathtub, replace the mixer tap with one that included a shower attachment and tile the walls up to the ceiling. It said it would do so between 26 and 27 July 2023. It apologised for any delays in its communication.
  5. It was not possible to turn the bath on 26 July 2023 due to the position of the soil pipe. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to confirm that she was unhappy that she had taken time off work, arranged childcare, and bought a new shower screen, but the work could not go ahead. She added that when operatives removed the bath panel, the drain was open with the bath placed on top, and there was rubble and rubbish beneath the bath.
  6. A surveyor visited on 27 July 2023 and asked the resident to consider de-escalating the complaint as this would not speed up the work. They believed the least disruptive option would be to brick up one of the windows, tile up the wall to allow the bath to stay in its current position and install the resident’s shower screen. The landlord gave its permission for this on 31 July 2023. It raised the work on 15 August 2023, including removing tiles and installing hygiene boards, replacing the bath panel, boxing around the toilet, and decorating.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 30 August 2023 as she was unhappy that a surveyor had asked her to retract her escalation and said this would delay the work. She was unhappy with the length of time it was taking to complete works to her bathroom, and said she was living in a damp environment that was causing damage. She was concerned about her child’s safety. She added that no one had provided information about when works would take place despite her calls.
  8. The resident confirmed the colour she wanted for the hygiene board on 31 August 2023. The landlord did not accept her choice due to the increased cost. Its records suggest that she did not agree to the work on 5 September 2023. Following a visit on 8 September 2023, it explained that it was not able to paint the hygiene boards or the bath panel as paint would not stick well. It raised several other works and she agreed to proceed with work on 15 September 2023.
  9. Works began on 3 October 2023. The resident raised concern that the water damage was more extensive than previously thought and she was told this would take longer to repair, meaning she would not have bathing facilities for her and her child for possibly 2 weeks. She said she was unhappy with the way the works were going on 10 and 12 October 2023. On 17 October 2023, she said that the sealant in the bathroom was coming away which allowed water under the bath with every use. She said the bathroom was still unusable and her and her child had no washing facilities for 14 days.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023 and explained the following:
    1. It apologised that a surveyor told her that a stage 2 escalation would delay work to the property. It said it should have accepted the escalation and explained what it was doing to resolve the repairs as soon as possible.
    2. It apologised for the delays in completing work to the bathroom and the inconvenience caused. It raised work on 16 August 2023 after it established that it could not move the bath. It found that it incorrectly assigned the work to a plumber which caused delays and confusion.
    3. It booked work to start on 4 September 2023 but she refused the work on 5 September 2023. It had since completed works and also replaced the flooring. It noted that she said that she was happy with the work on 23 October 2023.
    4. It did not find damp during visits to the property and hoped that following the repairs, she was now able to use the shower without water splashing on the walls and floor. It apologised that the delays may have exacerbated this. It offered £500 compensation; £400 for the delays from 26 July 2023 and the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the delays in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
  11. The resident responded as she was unhappy that it did not fully address:
    1. Her concerns about the behaviour of its staff,
    2. The waste found below her bath on 8 September 2023,
    3. That contractors had not removed the waste from the front and rear garden,
    4. Her concerns about damp,
    5. That she could not use the bath for 23 days as the work took longer to complete,
    6. That there was poor workmanship and communication and this all impacted her child’s asthma.
  12. The landlord responded on 2 November 2023. It confirmed it had apologised for incorrect information about the stage 2 escalation. It said she did not raise the issue of rubbish under the bath at either stage of the complaint but apologised that there was rubbish under the bath when it was removed. Its repair team said that the toilet and bath were useable during the work and only unavailable when operatives were working. It had asked operatives to remove the rubbish. It did not identify damp or mould during its attendances, but she could ask for an inspection if needed.

Complaint 2

  1. The resident continued to pursue her concerns related to bathroom works. The evidence provided indicates that:
    1. The landlord instructed contractors to reattend to seal areas correctly to stop water penetration on 3 November 2023following her further reports.
    2. She reported that the sealant was coming away again on 17 November 2023. It reported completing work to mould wash the bathroom ceiling on this day. On 29 November 2023, it asked operatives to visit to touch up the sealant around the bathtub, the hygiene boards and the toilet boxing.
    3. The landlord completed an inspection on 5 December 2023. The resident has advised that following the inspection, it said it needed to remove the boards, render the walls, and reinstate and reseal the boards.
    4. Separately, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 February 2024 about delays in work to the garden wall and fencing. It offered compensation and said it would replace the wall with fencing.
    5. Works began on 26 February 2024. The resident said that operatives removed the hygiene boards and replastered the wall, but she did not know when works would continue and could not use the bathing facilities. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 March 2024 as she had turned operatives away the previous day for the bathroom work.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 13 March 2024. She was unhappy that the bathroom works were not finished, and that work needed to be repeated twice due to the workmanship. She added that contractors were not communicating with her about appointments, and she had found a razor blade used during bathroom works which put her child in danger. She believed the contractor had blocked her number and wanted a plan for the work as she had no bathing facilities and no useable garden.
  3. Between 15 and 22 March 2024, the landlord and resident discussed the works, and it confirmed work would start on 25 March 2024. She noted that she had not been able to use the bath or shower for 3 weeks. It offered to place plastic sheets over the wall to allow her to use the bath, but it is unclear whether this happened. It suggested that work would take 2 to 3 days once started.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2024. It apologised for delays in completing bathroom works. It booked work for 12 March 2024, but did not make her aware of the work in advance. Work was now due to start on 25 March 2024. It also referenced the garden repairs and said that it was waiting for a start date for the remaining work which would not be before 8 April 2024. It apologised that a surveyor did not respond to her and explained that they were on leave. It said it should have provided details for the property surveyor. It offered £50 compensation and upheld the complaint due to miscommunication about the scheduled appointment and a general lack of communication.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 22 March 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the lack of communication about works, and that each repair raised needed to be redone due to poor workmanship. She said that it had not completed work to the garden wall, and she was unable to use the bath or shower. She set out the impact this was having on her health and pregnancy. On 27 March 2024, she raised concern that no one had visited to complete the further work since 25 March 2024. The landlord’s internal records show that it intended to start work to the garden wall on 22 April 2024, and complete work in the bathroom on 23 April 2024. The work was complete as of 3 May 2024.
  6. The landlord sent a combined stage 2 response letter on 8 May 2024 which related both to the garden wall and the bathroom:
    1. It apologised that the resident experienced further delays in works to the bathroom and garden. It noted that she did not want it to complete a post inspection and was unhappy with the standard of work to the bathroom. It agreed for her to send photos.
    2. It previously apologised that the surveyor did not respond due to being on leave. In relation to her concern that contractors blocked her calls, it explained that due to the frequency of calls, they found it necessary to redirect queries to the landlord to manage the situation more effectively.
    3. It said that it had addressed her concerns about the quality of previous works as part of its stage 2 response in October 2023 where it agreed the works were not up to standard and offered compensation. It acknowledged the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and offered £20 compensation. It also offered an additional £150 for the delays in carrying out repairs.
  7. The resident initially referred her complaint to us in November 2023 as she maintained that she was without use of bathing facilities for 23 days which impacted her household’s mental health. She was unhappy with the quality of the work and did not feel the landlord had fully acknowledged the impact on her. She also remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her further complaint and the ongoing impact of not having full access to bathing facilities. In May 2025, she explained to us that a surveyor said they needed to do further work to the bathroom, but did not yet have dates.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy handbook confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, as well as internal walls and installations it provides in bathrooms. It attends emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 28 working days. Non urgent repairs include wall tiling and plastering, and painting and decorating.
  2. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. The landlord should respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where it needs a longer timeframe to investigate, it should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and when they will receive a response.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom works between May 2023 and May 2024

  1. We have addressed the landlord’s handling of each complaint and made an overall determination below.

Complaint 1

  1. The landlord has not disputed that there were unnecessary and avoidable delays in its handling of the initial work to the resident’s bathroom. It has offered £400 for the delays following the initial work on 26 July 2023 and for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident remained dissatisfied with the time taken to complete work and has maintained that she could not use her bathing facilities for 23 days from 3 October 2023.
  2. We note that the bathroom had a bath and was not initially designed to include the use of a shower. The resident first reported damage to her bathroom walls above the tiles on 2 May 2023. In her subsequent communication, she explained that when using the bath, water splashed and caused damage to the wall above the adjacent tiles, her floor, and the window. The landlord believed the damage to the flooring and wall above the tiles was due to improper use of the rinsing aid attachment as a shower.
  3. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord communicated effectively following a survey on 30 May 2023. Its records indicate that the request for it to move the bath and install a shower was an improvement not a repair so it could not raise the work, but it is not clear that it informed the resident. It was reasonable in the circumstances for it to raise works on 20 June 2023 to tile the wall adjacent to the bath up to the ceiling to prevent any damage caused by water splashing higher than the existing 4 courses of tiles.
  4. This was put on hold as the resident maintained that it needed to install a shower and move the bath. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord was obligated to provide the resident with a shower, as she had access to bathing facilities via a bath. However, it ultimately agreed to this work due to her concerns that its policies provide tips on saving energy – including using a shower instead of a bath. While the landlord apologised for any delays in communication or updates she experienced in its stage 1 complaint response, it did not explain where it had failed or fully address this.
  5. The landlord’s internal communication indicates that it was not possible to know about the position of the soil stack before the works began on 26 July 2023, when it removed the bath panel. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have ensured the work was possible beforehand by removing the panel in the first instance to prevent any unnecessary delay or inconvenience.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably by sending a surveyor on 27 July 2023, within a reasonable timeframe, to determine the next steps. It agreed work to remove and brick up the window and tile the wall on 31 July 2023. However, it did not raise a work order until 15 August 2023, 2 weeks later. Its records indicate that it was aware that there would likely be a delay due to issues with contractors accepting work but we have not seen that it explained this to the resident at the time. It has recognised that there was a delay in progressing the work until 4 September 2023 as it incorrectly assigned this to a plumber, despite work needed to brick up the window and tiling. It acted reasonably by recognising that it could have avoided the delay.
  7. The landlord has suggested that the resident refused the work on 5 September 2023. We have not seen clear evidence to show her reasoning at the time, although the subsequent evidence suggests that this related to the colour of the hygiene boards and bath panel. While it was reasonable for the landlord to give her a colour choice, it would not be obliged to install boards that were more costly at her request. The resident agreed to progress the bathroom work on 15 September 2023 and work began on 3 October 2023. The delay at this stage appears to have been partly outside of the landlord’s control due to the need for the resident to accept the work, and to rebook contractors.
  8. The landlord’s records of what happened once the work began on 3 October 2023 are limited. We have not seen clear evidence to show that the landlord effectively managed the resident’s expectations about how long the work would take, or the level of disruption to expect. She has maintained that she was told the work would take 5 days. It is of concern that despite her report on 3 October 2023 that the work was more extensive that originally thought (due to the water damage), there is no evidence to show the landlord effectively communicated with her or provided any reassurance.
  9. There remains a dispute regarding whether the resident was able to use the bath during the work. The landlord said that it reinstated the bath after each working day and she was able to use this. However, the resident has maintained that operatives and surveyors told her not to use the bath as any water on the plaster would delay the installation of wall boards, and she could not use this for 23 days (until around 25 October 2023).
  10. Major works are likely to cause a level of disruption but the landlord would be expected to ensure that the resident had use of the facilities at the end of each day. We have not seen evidence to confirm she was told not to use the bath. However, we have also not seen evidence to show that the landlord had clear oversight of the work, or that operatives used sheeting to protect the plastered wall from water to allow her to use the facilities without causing damage. While the bath may have been functional, it is understandable that the resident may not have been able to use it, especially during works to remove the window which she said took some days.
  11. The resident raised specific concern on 17 October 2023 that she had not been able to use the bath for 14 days and provided photos of gaps in the sealant. The gaps may not have prevented her from using the facilities but we understand that she was concerned about potential water damage. In its complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had reported being happy with the works on 23 October 2023 albeit we have not seen evidence to confirm this.

Complaint 2

  1. As part of our investigation, on 18 June 2024, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the resident’s initial complaint, details of any outstanding work, confirmation that the issue had been resolved and completion dates for any repairs, or plans in place to resolve these. In its submissions in September 2024, it did not provide clear information relating to the second complaint or further repairs. We asked it to provide additional information. However, its further repair records are unclear as to what work it completed to the bathroom. As such, we have relied on communication records between the landlord, the resident, and us, to determine the course of events.
  2. Within its complaint responses on 22 March 2024 and 8 May 2024, the landlord recognised that it did not tell the resident in advance that it would visit for the bathroom work on 12 March 2024. It acknowledged that it did not provide contact details for another staff member while her main point of contact was on leave. It also apologised for the delay in completing bathroom (and garden) works.
  3. The landlord offered £50 towards its poor communication and the misunderstanding, and £150 compensation for the delays in completing both the garden, and bathroom works. For this investigation, we have split its offer of £150 equally, making the total offer £125 for this aspect of the complaint. The resident has not asked us to investigate the garden works so we have recommended below that it pays the £75 toward the garden works as offered, if it has not already done so.
  4. The resident raised concerns about the quality of the bathroom works in November 2023 following the first complaint. While several visits appear to have taken place in relation to the sealant in November 2023, the matter remained unresolved until late April 2024. We have seen evidence to indicate that the landlord established that it needed to complete work involving the hygiene boards as of 5 December 2023. However, work did not begin until 26 February 2024, over 2 months later. We have not seen evidence to confirm the reason for the delay. However, its internal communication from 3 January 2024 indicates that it did not have a clear plan for the work as it did not know which contractor would be completing this.
  5. While work began to remove the hygiene boards and plaster on 26 February 2024, we have not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord clearly communicated the timeframe for the work. While it recognised that it did not inform the resident of an appointment for 12 March 2024, this led to a delay in reinstating the boards until 25 March 2024, and the resident was left with bare walls for a month. We have been unable to determine whether this was through the entirety of the bathroom or specific areas but she has also referred to her shower screen being removed during work.
  6. The landlord offered to place plastic sheeting on the walls on 15 March 2024 so that the resident was “able to use the bath”. This indicates that it was aware she had been unable to use this due to the implications of getting the new plaster wet for around 18 days at this stage. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to install the sheeting. However, it should have considered doing so from the outset to allow her full access to her bathing facilities. It is unclear whether the resident agreed or whether the sheets were fitted.
  7. On 15 March 2024, the landlord also informed the resident that it would complete work within 2 to 3 days from 25 March 2024 dependent on what time operatives could access the property in the mornings. She then raised specific concern on 25 and 27 March 2024 that the operatives had only completed the work to the hygiene boards and had not returned for the remaining works, including decoration. The landlord did not arrange these until 23 April 2024, a month later.
  8. While the further works may not have impacted the resident’s use of the facilities, the extended delay in completing the decorations was likely to cause additional inconvenience. We note that she remained dissatisfied with the quality of work as of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 8 May 2024 but we have not investigated this due to a lack of clear evidence to show what she felt was outstanding at the time.
  9. The landlord has not suitably acknowledged the impact of the need to repeat works or the resident’s concerns about the quality of previous work. It said it had already addressed the standard of work as part of the previous complaint, adding that it accepted the quality of work was poor and offered compensation for this.
  10. However, the former complaint and stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023 did not address the resident’s concerns about the standard of work completed in October 2023 or offer compensation for this specifically. The landlord should have addressed the concerns about the standard and need for repeated work as part of this complaint. Its failure to do so means that it has not demonstrated that it fully acknowledged the impact of its failings.

Summary

  1. We have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the bathroom works between May 2023 and May 2024. The landlord has taken some steps to acknowledge the impact of its failures on the resident. Its overall offers of £400 and £125 compensation within its responses goes some way to acknowledge these failings but does not suitably reflect the impact on her.
  2. We have not been able to conclude that the resident was without full use of the bath for 23 days during the initial works. However, we have not seen that the landlord managed her expectations about how long the work would take, and she may not have had use of the bath during at least some of the period 3 to 17 October 2023. It is also evident that she spent time and trouble pursuing communication and the landlord has not evidenced that it had clear oversight of the works or that it offered any informed reassurance.
  3. In addition, the landlord has not suitably recognised the inconvenience caused by the need to repeat failed works, or the impact of not having full use of the bathroom due to the implications of water splashing onto fresh plaster for at least 18 days during the further work between February and March 2024.
  4. We have ordered the landlord to increase its offer and pay the resident £750 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her. Our remedies guidance states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate in cases where there have been failings that had a significant impact on a resident or may have been ongoing over a considerable period as was the case here.

The landlord’s handling of the complaints

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 July 2023. This was within its complaint handling timescales. It is evident that the resident felt pressured to de-escalate her complaint following her request on 26 July 2023 as she was led to believe this would delay the work to her property. While we do not know exactly what was said on the day, it is of concern that the landlord asked the surveyor to attempt to de-escalate the complaint, extending the overall timeframe. We have not seen documentary evidence to confirm that she agreed to de-escalate the complaint at the time, and the landlord should have responded in line with its complaints process regardless.
  2. The landlord has not disputed that it should have accepted the complaint escalation at the time. It acted reasonably by apologising and confirming that it would remind staff of the correct protocol, demonstrating that it had taken steps to learn from the complaint. It also acted reasonably by recognising that it did not respond within its published timeframes when she re-escalated her complaint on 30 August 2023 and did not keep her updated on the progress of the complaint. Overall, we find the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is proportionate to put right the impact on the resident of the delay and its communication around escalating the complaint.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord did not address her concerns about rubbish found below her bath on 26 July 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising that there was rubbish below the bath in its communication on 2 November 2023, following the complaint. However, it said she had not raised this as part of the complaint which was inaccurate as this concern formed part of her escalation.
  4. The landlord should have taken steps to recognise her concern within its complaints process. While this was a shortcoming, it acted reasonably by apologising within a reasonable timeframe, and we do not find that this had a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint. It also failed to adequately consider her concerns about the lack of bathing facilities within its complaints process as we addressed above.
  5. The landlord addressed the resident’s further complaint regarding her bathroom within its stage 1 response timescales between 13 and 22 March 2024. Following her escalation on 22 March 2024, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 8 May 2024, 47 working days later and outside its policy timescales. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to send a combined complaint response given that it had previously addressed her concerns related to the garden wall at stage 1 on 11 March 2024.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising the delay at stage 2. However, its responses included very little information about the timeframes of the repairs. It did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the quality and need to repeat works (as detailed above), the lack of bathing facilities during the work, or her concern about finding a razor blade left by workmen. It also provided very little detail about the repairs at each stage, indicating that it may not have fully engaged with her concerns. While the landlord offered £20 compensation for the complaint handling delay, this was disproportionately low given the failings identified when compared with its previous offer.
  7. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. Its overall offer of £120 compensation for delays in its handling of both complaints goes some way to recognise the impact of these failings but does not adequately address the inconvenience caused by the quality of its responses. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of bathroom works between May 2023 and May 2024.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £950 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £750 in recognition of the impact of its handling of the bathroom works between May 2023 and May 2024. This includes the landlord’s previous offers of £400 and £125.
      2. £200 in recognition of the impact of its complaint handling failures. This includes the landlord’s previous offers totalling £120.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about ongoing problems in the bathroom and confirm, in writing, the steps it intends to take to address these, with expected timescales for the work.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

 Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord pays the resident £75 compensation toward delays in completing the garden work as it offered on 8 May 2024, as well as the other compensation it offered in February 2024 in relation to this, if it has not already done so.
    2. The landlord considers reviewing its handling of the resident’s complaints to identify points of learning. It should consider its communication with residents and record keeping during major works.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks.