Clarion Housing Association Limited (202102177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102177

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 May 2023

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:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to her.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mouldy kitchen.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for pipes in the kitchen to be boxed-in.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about these matters.
5. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord granted for a fixed-term of six years and starting on 15 May 2020, with a probationary period of 18 months.
3. The resident complained that the condition of the property when it was allocated to her meant that she was unable to move in. The resident complained that the landlord had left her to deal with the problems in the property. She had removed the kitchen to deal with mould behind the kitchen units which she alleged could be smelt through the cupboards and she was concerned about mould causing her children to be ill. The resident stated she had not installed a new kitchen, however, as the landlord had not dealt with the mould nor boxed-in the pipes.
4. The resident was dissatisfied with the £50 of compensation offered by the landlord at stage two of the complaints procedure for failures in its complaints handling. She considered this amount of compensation to be insufficient given the time that the issues with mould had been ongoing.
5. The landlord’s position was that after the tenancy started there were some post-void works which it completed. It initially noted that a new kitchen was not required. Rather, it suggested that the kitchen had not lived out its usual lifespan and so would be subject to repair. This position changed in the stage two response, however, and the decision was taken to replace the kitchen. The landlord offered total compensation of £50 regarding communication during the complaints procedure and delay in issuing complaint responses.
6. As to the outcome that the resident wanted, she queried why no rent had been paid back to her by the landlord given that she had been unable to live at the property. The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the worktop, sink and tap that she paid for herself and for the landlord to fit these items. The resident also wanted the kitchen and bathroom to be refurbished as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope

7. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a drain outside the property. Following the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident also raised concerns about damp generally in the property and that the flooring she had installed was damaged. As these matters were not raised in the resident’s original complaint, however, they were not addressed by the landlord in its complaint response and would not have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
8. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme it is explained that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue these matters, she will need to ensure that they have first been responded to by the landlord and exhausted its process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to her

9. The resident telephoned the landlord on 19 May 2020 stating that she had not moved into the property as repairs were needed first. It is not in dispute that the resident was unhappy with the condition of the property when it was allocated to her.  It is not clear what action the landlord took as the repairs history noted that any disrepair issues needed to be raised with whoever gave the resident the keys.
10. The landlord’s void standard sets out the standard the property should reach when it is let to a new tenant. “Void” refers to the time that the property is empty after the previous tenants leave and before the new tenancy starts. The landlord’s policy states that at the void inspection all the works to be completed in the void period should be recorded. The void standard also states that all the responsive repairs required should be carried out whilst the property is empty to ensure the property is safe and serviceable and that the new tenant does not have to report any repairs after they move in. Given that the resident had not moved into the property due to outstanding repairs, this Service would have expected the landlord to promptly make arrangements, to confirm for itself that the standard of the property was acceptable. However, there is no evidence that a follow-up inspection happened, and the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of any voids sign off sheets.
11. Although information pertaining to the voids works was requested from the landlord as part of this investigation, the landlord has not provided a copy of the void inspection, details of the works completed during the void period, nor details of the works completed after the void period. Void works are delivered by repairs service providers under a contract with the landlord and therefore this Service appreciates that information requested might not be immediately accessible. Nonetheless, the landlord still needs to be able to access records about its repairs and the condition of its properties when let. Without contemporaneous evidence, it is difficult for this Service to establish the extent of the issues which remained incomplete at the time the property was being let. The lack of contemporaneous evidence also means that it is difficult to tell what information the landlord was relying on when it later responded to the resident’s complaint about this matter.
12. Given that the property had been allocated to the resident following a homeless application she made to the local authority and she had not moved into the property, it would be expected that the contact logs provided by the landlord would demonstrate ongoing contact between the resident and landlord in an effort to resolve the matter. However, there is no such contact evident from the landlord’s records.
13. The issues with record keeping described above constitute failings on the part of the landlord in relation to its record keeping, and a finding of maladministration has been made accordingly.
14. The landlord spoke with the resident about the outstanding repairs in May 2020 and following her subsequent complaint, issued a complaint response on 31 July 2020. This investigation has not had sight of a written complaint from the resident at that time although the complaint response summarised the resident’s concerns as the landlord saw them. According to the complaint response, the resident stated that she had signed the tenancy agreement against her will; had been unable to view the property fully as works were being completed; and was advised that all works would be resolved before she moved in.
15. This Service is unable to confirm what the resident was advised before she moved in as there is no record of this and the Ombudsman was not present at the time. Records suggest that the resident had seen the property and later completed the signup process electronically, indicating that this would not have been against her will. It was reasonable, nonetheless, for the resident to assume that upon taking up occupancy, any outstanding works would have been attended to. This Service appreciates that on learning that this was not the case, the resident would have been understandably disappointed.
16. The complaint response stated that the property was “not inhabitable” at sign-up. It is unclear whether this was a typing mistake intended to be “not uninhabitable” or whether the property was indeed not at a liveable standard. This is of concern, nonetheless, as the void standard states that the property must be ready for the new tenant, and it is clear to this Service that it was not. It is also confusing in so far as the letter did not go on to explain any steps taken to put things right. Instead the complaint response went on to refer to the resident’s expectations as she had not lived in social housing before. This was irrelevant and did not change the fact that the landlord’s properties needed to be prepared to the appropriate standard ahead of a new tenant moving in.
17. The landlord’s complaint response stated that its operative completed all void works and that when the resident reported repair issues, it had attended. It is unclear to this Service how the landlord was able to confirm this, however, in the absence of contemporaneous records.
18. According to later internal emails sent by the landlord, all works were completed by November 2020. These works included stain block at the back of the gas meter cupboard in the kitchen; stain block grout in the bathroom; mould wash to the wall (kitchen base unit cupboard, removed and refixed); and re-fixing tiles to the kitchen splash back.
19. Under the landlord’s repair policy, however, at least following the resident’s report that works remained outstanding (in May 2020), these works should have been completed within 28 calendar days. The alleged completion of all works in November 2020 was therefore still significantly outside of the timescale in which the landlord was reasonably required to complete works. This was inappropriate. This Service is also unable to confirm, in the absence of robust records, that as the landlord suggested, there were no further outstanding issues.
20. The resident re-raised her concern with the condition of the property at sign up in her complaint dated 25 June 2021. As part of the peer review of the complaint (at stage two), the landlord gathered internal information which demonstrated that the condition of the property had been an ongoing complaint, but understood that it had attended to rectify some issues. Its contact notes did not reflect this, however, highlighting a clear record keeping issue.
21. The peer review report identified the relevant questions the landlord needed to answer to show that it had handled the matter appropriately. While this was a reasonable approach, it is clear to this Service from the landlord’s own internal questions, that this issue was not appropriately managed. The lack of contemporaneous records meant that the landlord would have been unable to demonstrate even for itself, that it had acted in line with its policy. Recollections without the appropriate evidence would not have been a reliable means of confirming this.
22. Although the landlord noted that photos taken demonstrated that the kitchen was in good condition and did not need to be replaced, this Service has not been provided with a copy of these photos. This Service has, however, seen photos which show black mould appearing above the upper kitchen units and behind pipework at the back of the lower units.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it compensates for its actions or failure to act, and considers the length of time to resolve problems; difficulties making a complaint; and costs incurred due to a service failure. The policy advises that discretionary compensation can be considered for issues such as time taken to resolve a complaint, inconvenience, and failure to follow process. The landlord’s policy sets out ranges of compensation depending on the failure and the impact on the resident.
24. Any void works should have been completed whilst the property was empty, which the landlord acknowledges was not done. With this, while this Service accepts that the landlord’s note describing the property as being “not inhabitable” may have been a mistake, it is telling that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the property was brought to a lettable standard prior to being let.
25. Moreover, the length of time take to allegedly complete the works was still inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s repair policy. Taking this into account, and coupled with the lack of records, this Service cannot see that the landlord handled matters appropriately.
26. As such, there is no evidence that the property was at a lettable standard between May and November 2020 (when responsive repairs were confirmed to be completed). As such, it would be appropriate to award compensation to the resident. As it is understood the resident has accrued some rent arrears, I find it would be appropriate for the landlord to agree the resident should not be liable for paying rent between 15 May and November 2020.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mouldy kitchen

27. This Service is unable to determine what the condition of the kitchen was like at the start of the tenancy. According to the resident’s complaint, when the property was allocated to her the kitchen was full of mould.
28. According to the void standard the kitchen must be left in a clean and sound condition. The void standard stated that where kitchen units are beyond reasonable repair or not to current Decent Homes standards, works to reach these standards will be carried out to the void property. Walls and surfaces should be left clean and free from mould. However, without a record of a void inspection or details of void works completed, there is no contemporaneous evidence to confirm the condition of the kitchen when the tenancy started.
29. The resident stated that although the landlord did undertake some work to address the mould (by spraying behind the units), not all of the mould could be treated because of its location. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this work taking place. According to the landlord’s later internal emails, all issues originally raised by the resident about the kitchen were addressed when she signed for the tenancy agreement. However, there is no evidence of this and therefore it is not possible to assess if any steps were indeed taken.
30. As the resident reported not moving into the property as works remained outstanding, the landlord could have arranged to inspect this to be sure for itself that no mould remained (amongst other things). While it seems that the landlord had the intention of doing this, and that an inspection was scheduled to take place on 15 June 2020, following a request to re-arrange the appointment, it does not appear that it took place. In the resident’s later complaint, she noted that a surveyor attended when she was first given the property and incorrectly told her that the mould was dust. According to the resident, the landlord stated it would investigate this with the surveyor but did not do so.
31. In the landlord’s correspondence on 31 July 2020 it acknowledged that the resident’s concerns included mould growth to the rear of the kitchen cupboards which were old and broken. She raised that a new kitchen was needed.  This was contested and the landlord advised that there were several years left in the kitchen’s lifespan. As it had only been replaced in 2012, it was not due for a replacement until 2032. The resident was subsequently advised to contact customer services regarding mould in the kitchen.
32. According to the repairs history, an inspection of the alleged mould behind the kitchen units was undertaken on 19 August 2020. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether this was the result of the resident contacting customer services as the landlord had suggested, but if so, this was a prompt response. Notes suggest that the contractor reported no works were required at the time.
33. There is no evidence of further contact about this matter until 8 October 2020, at which time, the landlord confirmed that works would start shortly but did not specify what work this was. The landlord responded to a complaint regarding the kitchen on 2 December 2020 and advised it would stain block the wall at the back of the gas meter cupboard.  However, the landlord was unable to provide a copy of this letter for this investigation due to system issues.
34. Records from this time do not indicate a significant ongoing issue at the resident’s property and thus do not correlate with the resident’s version of events. By 29 January 2021 the landlord became aware that the resident had removed the kitchen, alleging that this was necessary to deal with the mould issue. The Ombudsman is aware that an appointment to address the “rotten” worktops was cancelled as a result of this.
35. It is unclear whether the resident’s decision to remove the kitchen temporarily fixed the mould issue. While the landlord attended the property on 4 March 2021 to seal up holes around the kitchen pipes, no reference to a damp or mould issue has been seen in the evidence provided.
36. Given the resident’s approach, nonetheless, it was reasonable that the landlord advised her of the requirement under her tenancy agreement to request permission for alterations. Although the resident has suggested that she was given permission verbally, this Service appreciates that this would have been contrary to the required process and was not sufficient to evidence permission. According to the landlord’s permissions policy, as well as the requirement to obtain consent, permission would not usually be given during the probationary period of the tenancy (which the resident was still under). It was therefore reasonable that the landlord brought this to the resident’s attention and considerate that rather than taking tenancy action, it recommended that she retrospectively request permission.
37. Following contact from the resident in April 2021, this Service shared with the landlord the resident’s complaint within which she indicated that there was still mould which she believed could be impacting her children. Records indicate that the landlord discussed this with the resident on 12 May 2021 and subsequently made arrangements for its contractor to complete a mould wash and seal the kitchen walls on 24 May 2021. The landlord noted following a post-inspection on 27 May 2021 that there were no further mould issues in the kitchen. This was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted quickly and in line with the approach this Service would expect. It might have been useful, however, given that the resident had repeatedly experienced this issue, for the landlord to have investigated the cause of the mould.
38. In October 2021, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould.  The report acknowledged the ‘many and varying root causes that lead to damp and mould’ and the challenges landlords face in providing a long-term solution. It highlighted the need for landlords to take a proactive and zero-tolerance approach, focusing on effective diagnosis, clear timescales, good communication with residents and after care. Although the report was produced after the events of the present complaint, it highlights the need for landlord’s to take more aggressive and proactive action to eradicate damp/mould issues.
39. While the Ombudsman might have found that redress could be due to the resident given that the landlord had not taken sufficient steps to understand / eradicate the cause of the reoccurring mould, its subsequent decision to arrange and absorb the cost of the resident’s new kitchen was an appropriate gesture in putting things right.
40. Where a resident is experiencing issues with a fitting or fixture in their property, they are required to give the landlord fair opportunity to repair this. If a decision is taken by the resident to act on their own accord, the landlord will not be responsible for the aftermath of their actions. In this case, it is unclear whether the resident provided the landlord with reasonable notice of the alleged reoccurring mould issue in the winter of 2020. In any case, as she took the decision to remove the kitchen fixtures, the landlord would not have been responsible for replacing these, or for any future repairs required.
41. Moreover, given that the landlord had previously confirmed for the resident that the kitchen was not due a replacement for another decade, this Service cannot see that the landlord would have been required to reimburse the resident for the likely cost of her kitchen replacement or to install a new one, once she took it upon herself to remove this.
42. On receiving further reports about the condition of the property from the resident’s social worker, however, and in light of the resident’s circumstance (being that the property was without a kitchen, that she was due to give birth and had two young children, and she had been battling a number of repair issues since the start of her tenancy), this Service can see that the landlord arranged for a manager to re-inspect the property. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord subsequently took the decision to replace the kitchen for her (which it later explained would include treatment of any additional mould).
43. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable, particularly given the that the resident set out for the landlord that this was the outcome she had desired. The landlord’s repairs policy states that in exceptional circumstances, the landlord may sometimes agree to carry out works that are not its responsibility and this should be addressed under a mutually agreed process with the resident. It is clear to this Service that the landlord did this in this situation.
44. It has therefore been determined that while the landlord should have taken a more prompt, proactive and inquisitive approach to addressing the mould at the resident’s property, by the time of its stage two response, it agreed to take the right steps to appropriately recognise the resident’s experience and to put things right. Its offer to replace the kitchen was enough to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.
45. The landlord subsequently noted that the resident had refused access to the contractor to carry out the installation on 19 November 2021 as she was concerned about mould in the kitchen and pest control. The landlord noted that the resident had been advised that mould treatment would form part of the works during installation.
46. Although the resident was of the opinion that she should be due a reimbursement in rent, her rent payment was a contractual obligation and there is no evidence to demonstrate that she was unable to live at the property over the course of this period. While this Service appreciates that this would be difficult without a kitchen, it is also noted that it was the resident who removed this herself. What’s more, as the resident took it upon herself to purchase a worktop, sink, and tap, without the landlord’s agreement, this Service cannot see that it would be required to reimburse the resident for this cost. It was reasonable enough that the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen and not to pursue any enforcement action for the removal of the previous kitchen.
47. For completeness, the Ombudsman is also aware that as the resident sought to have her bathroom replaced too, the landlord agreed to do this at the same time as the kitchen replacement where possible. This was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for pipes in the kitchen to be boxed-in

48. A works order recorded as complete on 4 March 2021 noted that the resident wanted pipework boxing-in (along with other works) and an inspection was required by a manager. It must be noted that there is no evidence that a manager’s visit took place at this time.
49. The landlord’s notes from 22 March 2021 state that the landlord did not agree to box-in the pipes as per the resident’s request, noting that as the resident was installing a new kitchen, she would need to pay for this work herself.
50. It is unclear whether the resident was aware of this decision, prior to the landlord’s complaint response, however. An email from the resident on 16 April 2021 explained that she had not installed the kitchen as she had been waiting for the pipe work to be addressed. The resident noted she was told that the contractor would sort this out but she had not heard back and she wanted the landlord to look into it. It appears that her request for work was also raised on 12 May 2021.
51. In view of this, the landlord’s communication could have been better. Earlier communication that it would not rectify this for the resident might have saved her some time in pursuing this matter. The Ombudsman is aware though, that on 10 June 2021 the landlord did advise that the pipes would not be boxed-in as they would be covered by the kitchen units and that no faults were found with this following inspection on 27 May 2021.
52. While the resident suggested in her stage two escalation that the issue was also allowing a draught and pests to enter the property, the landlord did not find any evidence of this. This Service can see that it was also highlighted at the time of the installation of the new kitchen, that boxing in the pipes would prevent the base units being fixed to the wall.
53. Unless infestation was reported throughout the block, the landlord would not usually arrange a pest control survey. However on this occasion, and in light of the resident’s concerns about pests, the landlord went beyond its obligations and arranged an infestation survey. The survey reported on 21 September 2021 that there was a low infestation level, and in the pest control report noted that they had checked for ant nests and placed ant bait pods.
54. Given that the landlord had previously attended on 4 March 2021 to seal up holes around the kitchen pipes, there are no grounds to criticise the landlord’s decision not to box-in the pipes. The landlord had largely been consistent in relaying this information to the resident and the landlord undertook a pest control survey which it was not obliged to do.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

55. The resident raised a complaint with the Ombudsman on 27 April 2021 and the Ombudsman sent a copy of this to the landlord on 29 April 2021. As a result, the landlord logged a stage one complaint on 5 May 2021. The landlord spoke with the resident on 12 May 2021 to establish the complaint issues and apologised to the resident about the delay on 20 May 2021, noting it was waiting for further information.
56. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded and investigated. According to its policy, the landlord aims to resolve all complaints within 10 working days and if it is unable to do so, it will keep the resident informed and provide a timescale. The landlord should therefore have responded to the complaint by 19 May 2021 or updated the resident if it was unable to do so. However, the update was provided a day late. The resident requested a call back with an update on 3 June 2021.
57. The resident asked the Ombudsman to escalate the complaint on 9 June 2021 due to no response from the landlord. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the complaint on 11 June 2021.  The landlord’s stage one response was dated 10 June 2021 and emailed to the resident the following day. Given that the landlord had not responded within the 10-working day policy, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay and advised that £25 was to be paid to the resident’s rent account.
58. The resident’s email of 21 June 2021 escalated the complaint to stage two noting that she did not receive the stage one response from the landlord but rather via the Ombudsman. The resident considered that £25 of compensation was insufficient given the time that the matter had been ongoing. The resident noted that the complaints team did not phone her as agreed and that although she telephoned the landlord daily, she was told that her case was closed.
59. According to the complaints policy (in use at the time), the landlord will aim to resolve peer review complaints (stage two) within 20 working days. Otherwise, the landlord will aim to keep the complainant informed and provide a revised timescale.
60. On 14 July 2021 the resident informed the Ombudsman that she did not receive a final complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint was not escalated when the resident sent her email of 21 June 2021 and was only progressed when the Ombudsman made contact on 16 July 2021 and the resident chased a response.  Given the delay, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident on 23 July 2021 for the time taken to contact her.
61. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two on 13 August 2021. The landlord noted it had shared the resident’s feedback about communication from the complaints team with management and asked that staff are reminded to keep residents informed. The landlord offered £25 of discretionary compensation to recognise the failure to communicate appropriately during the stage one process.  The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary compensation payments in the range of £50 to £250 will be offered where there has been service failure (such as a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses) that has had some impact on the resident. Given that the complaints team had not telephoned the resident as agreed, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused with an offer of compensation.
62. Effective complaints handling requires a landlord to identify why something went wrong so it can learn and try to avoid similar failings. In this case the landlord had reminded staff to keep residents informed which was an appropriate step to take as the complaint response timescale can be extended according to the complaints policy as long as residents are kept updated. The landlord had also identified in the peer review report that the delayed response had arisen because the resident had two accounts and the request for complaint escalation had been attached to the other account. This had been raised with IT in March 2021 to merge the accounts and so it would be expected that by July 2021 that this would have been resolved.
63. In the stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised also for the delay in responding and offered discretionary compensation of £25.  However, given that this was the second time that the landlord had delayed in responding to the complaint and the second time that the landlord had failed to keep the complainant updated about a revised timescale, a further offer of £25 did not adequately reflect the landlord’s failure on this occasion. There was no indication that the landlord had learned from its previous oversight. In recognition of this the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord had not done enough at stage two to recognise its repeat failing. As such, an increased order of compensation has been made below in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in responding to the resident’s complaints.

Determination

64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to her.
65. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mouldy kitchen, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
66. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for pipes in the kitchen to be boxed-in.
67. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
68. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

69. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns with regards to the condition of the property when it was let.
    2. Paid the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in responding to the complaint at stages one and two. This amount should replace the £50 compensation already offered to the resident.
    3. Completed a further inspection of the property to establish if there are any further issues with damp and mould. This inspection should include an inspection of the entire property, and should include damp testing as well as visual inspections for mould.
    4. Confirm to the resident that they will not be liable for rent accrued between 15 May and November 2020
70. Under the terms of the revised Scheme the landlord should pay compensation directly to the resident rather than crediting the amount to the resident’s rent account.

Recommendations

71. The landlord should approach the resident and ensure that the mould issue she had been experiencing has not returned since treating and replacing her kitchen in December 2021.
72. The landlord should review this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, and consider areas where it could change its practice to improve its handling of damp and mould reports. It is noted that the landlord is already undertaking a damp and mould project.
73. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that full and accurate notes are made on its systems, particularly in relation to void inspections and void works. It is noted that the landlord has already been undertaking reviews in relation to its record keeping.
74. The landlord should review its complaint handling to ensure that where it is unable to respond to a complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure, that it keeps the resident updated about a revised timescale.