Cornwall Housing Limited (202453003)

Decision
Case ID	202453003
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Cornwall Housing Limited
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	3 December 2025

Background

The resident lives at the property with her husband and 4 sons. One of her sons has health conditions which make him vulnerable to infection. The resident’s youngest son is disabled, unable to walk, and has other additional needs. The resident has a spinal condition which makes caring for her youngest son physically challenging.
In 2022 the resident was approved for local authority funding to adapt the property to make it suitable for the family’s needs. The landlord was responsible for planning and carrying out the works, in line with recommendations made by the local authority. Extensive works were undertaken by the landlord throughout 2023 and 2024. This included external landscaping and drainage works, building a front porch for wheelchair access and storage, and a rear extension. The extension included a bedroom and a specially adapted bathroom. The extension was completed in January 2025. The resident complained to the landlord in February 2025 because she had concerns about the building works that had been done and that some adaptations remained outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about major building works, repairs, and disabled adaptations.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about major building works and repairs, including the installation of aids and adaptations.
2. The landlord made an offer which provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about major building works, repairs, and adaptations

The landlord’s decision making around its installation of a high/low rising bath resulted in the resident’s youngest son being without appropriate bathing facilities. It did not take adequate steps to correct this within a reasonable timeframe of becoming aware of it. The landlord did not provide evidence that it resolved the outstanding drainage issues in a reasonable timeframe. The installation of a radiator in the porch has been unreasonably delayed and remains outstanding.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and failed to respond to all elements of the complaint. The landlord took appropriate steps to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 14 January 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about major building works, repairs, and adaptations. This replaces the £500 offer already made. Any amount already paid may be deducted from this amount. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	14 January 2026
3	Adaptations The landlord must take responsibility for the sourcing and fitting of a high/low rising bath, in line with the original plans for the extension. It must write to the resident committing to this, providing clear timescales by which this work will begin.	28 January 2026
4	The landlord must review its progress on the installation of the hoist track. It must decide how to proceed and write to the resident setting out its next steps. This must include clear timescales by which it these next steps will be done.	28 January 2026
5	Repairs and remedial works The landlord must take all steps to ensure that the following are started no later than the due date: Fixing the root cause of the drainage issues. The installation of the radiator in the porch. The completion of a fire risk assessment and evacuation plan. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	28 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Compensation We have found reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling on the basis that the £25 offered will be paid.

Our recommendations

Compensation

We have found reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling on the basis that the £25 offered will be paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that following the major adaptation works at the property, there was supposed to be: A ramp providing level access to the back garden, which had not been installed. Instead there was a steep step preventing her youngest son from accessing the garden. A high/low rising bath, but a standard bath had been installed instead. A rise and fall kitchen worktop, which had not been installed. The resident was also unhappy because: The new porch at the front of the property had been built to a poor standard, there were leaks, a faulty door, and drafts. The extension was cold as there was only 1 radiator. There were drainage problems that had been causing blockages every few weeks since October 2024. The drains had been left exposed following previous drainage works.
20 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Senior staff were meeting to address the resident’s concerns about access to the garden from the back of the property. The local authority had said it would source a high/low rising bath, which the landlord would then fit when the bath was ready. The contractor that had build the porch had gone into liquidation, causing delays in resolving some outstanding issues. It had now appointed contractors to resolve issues with the door and roof. It said it would inspect the drafts reported. It said the overall quality of the structure had been signed off by building control. It was sorry its stage 1 complaint response was 3 working days late. It offered £25 compensation for this delay.
Between 21 March 202 and 10 April 2025.	The resident emailed the landlord the following day to escalate her complaint. She spoke to and met with the landlord on 2 further occasions to discuss the reasons she remained unhappy, which were: That she wanted to rear garden access issue to be resolved as part of the complaint. That the high/low rising bath was included in the original plan and should be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. She also thought the landlord should have installed a wet room bathroom, but this had not been done. That the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the rise and fall worktop. That in addition to the issues with the porch she raised at stage 1, she did not believe the landlord had built the porch in line with relevant building regulations. The landlord had attended to measure for a new radiator a month previously, but she had not received an update since. The drains which had been left exposed were causing a health risk to her older son who was prone to infection. She believed this had caused him to become unwell. A contractor had attended on 20 March 2025 to plan the fitting of a hoist and track in the extension, in line with the plans. It had raised structural concerns about the ceiling in the extension which would need to be resolved before the hoist could be installed. That she had concerns about fire safety, such as that there was no fire escape for her youngest son and that a fire risk assessment was needed.
28 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that: A high/low rise bath had been included in the original plans, but was changed with the resident’s consent due to rising costs. It was still working with the local authority to secure and install one. It could find no mention of a rise and fall worktop in the original adaptation plans. If the current arrangements were not working, the resident should raise this with her assigned occupational therapist (OT). The issues with the porch door had now been resolved. The quote it had been given to install a new radiator were too high and that it was in the process of getting a new quote. The contractor had raised concerns about structure of the ceiling, which the landlord had investigated and responded with the necessary assurances. The landlord said the hoist could now be installed as planned. Work was ongoing to complete a fire risk assessment. To resolve the resident’s complaint, it said that it would take the following actions: Resolve the drainage issues reported. Complete a full review of all the works it had completed to date, compared with the original plans, by no later than 30 May 2025. Following the review, it would hold a meeting with several named staff members, the resident, and the OT, to agree the final scope of remaining works by no later than 13 June 2025. Following this meeting, the agreed scope of works would be sent to the resident. It would check in with the resident on a monthly basis until all of the above had been completed.
Between 27 July 2025 and 18 November 2025	The resident asked us to investigate. She said that to resolve her complaint she wanted: The hoist to be installed. The landlord to install a rise and fall worktop. The high/low rising bath to be installed. The radiator to be installed. The landlord to install a suitable solution to provide access to the back garden. The fire risk assessment to be completed. The drainage issues to be resolved. The quality of the building works in the porch and extension to independently inspected and any outstanding issues to be resolved. The resident also wanted us to investigate new issues that had arisen after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

What we found and why

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

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about major building works, repairs, and disabled adaptation.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident raised concerns with us about the landlord’s handling of further issues which arose after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She also asked us to investigate some issues which she complained to the landlord about at stage 1 of the complaints process, but did not raise at stage 2. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response and which were responded to.
The resident complained to the landlord that its handling of the drainage issues led to one of her sons becoming unwell. We cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by expert witnesses with appropriate medical and legal knowledge.

What we have investigated

The resident’s complaint to the landlord included several other elements and events which we have not referenced in this report. We have considered all of these during our investigation, but it is not necessary to assess them all to resolve the complaint. Our investigation has focussed on the outstanding areas of concern and the elements which directly relate to the outcome sought by the resident as a result of this investigation.
When determining what is fair and reasonable, we considered the complexity of the works to adapt the property. Strict adherence to all policy measures, such as repair timescales, was unrealistic, and some disruption was inevitable. This assessment relates only to the landlord’s actions and excludes local authority involvement, such as occupational therapy or other staff..
The resident asked us to assess the architects and technical plans against the works that were done. We have considered the original plans and OT recommendations as key pieces of evidence. However, these are technical in nature and in many areas it has not been reasonable for us to form a view, as we are not technical experts. Where this is the case, we have explained why and instead considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. For a more in-depth technical assessment of any of the outstanding issues, the resident may choose to engage her own experts.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a hoist and track in the extension

After the extension was completed, a hoist track was due to be installed. It ran throughout the building to allow movement between rooms, particularly from the bedroom to the adapted bathroom. A contractor attended on 20 March 2025 to take measurements to install the hoist. The contractor attended and raised concerns about the ceiling structure’s capability to allow the hoist track to be installed as planned.
This caused delays that were initially outside the landlord’s control. The landlord acted appropriately by conducting investigations into the structure of the ceiling and providing evidence to reassure the contractor that it could support the hoist. It did this by 10 April 2025, which reasonable in view of the technical nature of the investigations needed. The landlord’s position at the time of its stage 2 complaint response was that it had resolved the structural concerns posed by the contractor and there was no reason installation of the hoist could not go ahead. This was reasonable based on the information available at the time.
After the stage 2 complaint response, there were further inspections where more details emerged about the structural challenges involved in installing the hoist. The landlord made the decision during the building work to install structural joists differently than shown in the plans. In making this decision, the landlord consulted the specifications set out in the plans, which said that the ceiling needed to be able to support a specified amount of weight. The landlord felt able to make this change because the decision was not expected to impact the amount of weight the ceiling could carry.
Although it was not clearly stated in the original plans, it later became clear that the original ceiling design was intentional to allow a single hoist track to go through the extension. The landlord’s decision to change this plan later presented significant challenges in installing the hoist track, which remain unresolved. Before deviating from the architects plans, the landlord should have taken the time to consult all the relevant experts and contractors. It should have ensured it took a holistic view of the project and its purpose, to be sure that its decision would not lead to unintended consequences. There was no evidence it did this.
The landlord continued to work with the OT to reach a solution after the stage 2 complaint response. The most recent evidence we have seen shows the landlord had engaged its surveyors and the local authority to try and resolve these issues and to avoid needing to rebuild the ceiling. The resident told us that she remains unhappy that the hoist has not been installed as specified in the original plans.
While it is reasonable for the landlord to explore alternative arrangements to mitigate costs, the length of time the hoist has been outstanding has become unreasonable. The resident reports increased difficulties in lifting her youngest son as he grows and as her spinal condition, which is degenerative, gets worse. An order has been made with specific timescales for the landlord to address this matter.

The resident’s concerns about bathing facilities in the extension

The resident said that she believed the original plans were to include a wet room bathroom. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the original plans and committing to review them. It found that the plans were to ensure the bathroom was designed in a way that would make it suitable for future wet room conversion, as the needs of the household changed over time. It concluded that it had done this, which the evidence supports. It is likely that there was some miscommunication around this point earlier in the design process. However, given the complexity of the plans and the time that has elapsed since these conversations are likely to have taken place, we cannot say that there was a failing in this regard.
The landlord said that the installation of a high/low rising bath was included in the original plans but later changed, with the resident’s consent, due to rising costs. There is evidence to support the landlord’s description of events. The landlord’s disabled adaptations policy states that the final decision on any adaptation request sits with the landlord. The landlord’s decision to change the plans and install a standard bath was not a failing at the time. However, the resident later told the landlord that she had only accepted this as a temporary arrangement and that if she did not accept, there would be no bathing facilities at all.
The landlord made the decision on 20 March 2025 to follow the OT’s offer to source a high/low rise bath, which the landlord would install. This was reasonable. However, on 25 March 2025 the OT wrote to the landlord explaining that the current arrangement was unsuitable and could result in the resident experiencing a back injury. The OT confirmed to the landlord that the bath was included and budgeted for in the original plans, and should therefore be provided and installed by the landlord. The resident had told the landlord that her spinal condition made getting her youngest son in and out of the bath painful, challenging, and at times impossible. A solution should have been sought promptly by the landlord after receipt of this email.
The landlord was right to agree in its stage 2 complaint response that while it had not been a failing that it altered the arrangements to install a rising bath, the bathroom it had installed was not suitable for the resident’s needs and needed to be resolved. The landlord continued to work with the local authority to source a rise and fall bath, but the bath has yet to be obtained for installation. While positive, this ultimately remains outstanding.
The landlord has been aware that despite its efforts, the bathing facilities have not been suitable since 25 March 2025. Although delays in sourcing the bath through the OT were outside the landlord’s control, it did not take appropriate steps to arrange alternatives once those delays became clear. Considering what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, it is a failing that no suitable bathing facilities are available at the time of this determination

Rising worktop

The resident said that her youngest son did not have somewhere suitable to eat. A rise and fall worktop was important to ensure he had a safe and stable eating place, that could be changed as he grew. The landlord said that a rise and fall worktop had not been included in the original plans. The evidence the landlord relied upon supports this. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by:
1. Committing to review the original plans against the works done by 29 May 2025, which it did.
2. Exploring alternative options such as lowering the worktop in place, which the resident later declined.
3. Advising the resident that if the current arrangement was unsuitable, she would need to speak to the OT. This was in line with the landlord’s disabled adaptations policy, which requires an OT assessment to support any adaptation request. There was no requirement under the landlord’s policy to contact the OT on the resident’s behalf. It was reasonable that it did not contact the OT itself because it knew the resident was already in frequent contact with them.

Level access to the back garden from the extension

A ramp to provide access to the back garden was included in the original plans for the extension. The plans noted that there would be technical challenges in installing this. This included the location of some drainage infrastructure, which may have needed moving first to allow for the ramp. The landlord investigated this possibility in April 2024 but it is unclear what the outcome of this was.
There were further unexpected technical reasons which meant that when the extension was signed off as complete on 30 January 2025, the landlord had not been able to install an access ramp. The landlord deemed the original design to be no longer be feasible. The nature of these reasons were complex and technical. It is not reasonable for us to form a view on the landlord’s decision to change the plan.
In response to her complaint, the landlord investigated its decision making process. It found that it had consulted its experts in making the decision, which was reasonable. At the time of the resident’s complaint, her youngest son had access to the rear garden only by going around the property in his wheelchair. The resident advised the landlord this would be a challenging and frustrating arrangement in the long term. In the short term it was not a possible solution because of ongoing landscaping work to the outside paths and alleyway that would be used.
The landlord’s commitment to completing a full review of the works done, alongside the original plans, was a reasonable step to take to resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns. The landlord then completed its further promise to explore alternative solutions to provide access to the back garden. The landlord engaged an architect which presented it with a new design on 17 June 2025. This was put to the resident and accepted on 9 July 2025, but she remains unhappy with the solution provided. Again due to the technical nature of the issue, it is not reasonable to comment on any aspects of the design. However the landlord made reasonable attempts to resolve the issue, in line with the expert advice that it received.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains

The resident complained to the landlord that the drains were blocking up every few weeks since October 2024. The landlord unblocked the drains and completed a CCTV survey on 25 November 2024 which found that the drains needed ‘re-sieving and realigning’ to prevent future blockages. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should respond to urgent repairs like blockages within 3 days. The landlord resolved the blockages within 24 hours after each report until 21 March 2025.
The landlord instructed a specialist contractor and was waiting for it to make contact when the drains blocked again on 15 January 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord progressed this work further. In the resident’s escalation request of 21 March 2025 she said that the drains had been blocked again since 19 March 2025. She also said that she was concerned that her older son, who was prone to infection, had fallen ill as a result of the blockages. The landlord should have addressed this concern promptly and strengthened its efforts to resolve the root cause once this information became known.
It instructed its contractor to attend but there is no evidence to confirm that this blockage was resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Blockages persisted after this time. There was no evidence provided by the landlord relating to these further blockages or how the landlord handled them.
The resident was frustrated that the underlying cause had not been addressed. The landlord committed to resolving the drainage issues in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord inspected the drains on 29 May 2025 and said that another CCTV survey was required. It is unclear if it had checked its own records, which suggested that the cause of the blockages had already been correctly identified but was awaiting completion.
At the time of this determination, the resident reports that the drains continue to block regularly. The landlord has provided no evidence the underlying cause has been resolved. It was a failing that the landlord did not complete its promise to the resident in its complaint response to resolve the drainage issues. The impact this had on the resident was compounded by the disruption caused by the other ongoing works, as well as the vulnerabilities within the family and the resident’s caring responsibilities.

Fire risk assessment

The resident first raised concerns about fire safety in the extension on 21 March 2025. Her primary concerns related to how her youngest son would be evacuated in the event of a fire, as well as other concern, such as a lack of fire doors. The landlord responded to all of these concerns by saying that work was ongoing to complete a fire risk assessment. While this was a reasonable next step, the landlord should also have responded to the resident’s concerns about fire doors and creating a feasible evacuation plan. It should also have taken steps to reassure the resident about the fire safety of the current building, and whether it was compliant with any legislation.
At the time of the complaint the landlord was waiting for the local authority and local fire service to visit and complete a fire risk assessment. On 11 April and 9 May 2025 it corresponded with the local authority which confirmed that the OT was continuing to request the fire service to attend. Internal emails also show the landlord was considering ways to improve fire safety in the extension. This was reasonable and in line with its commitment to continue working to get a fire risk assessment completed.
The resident told us that at the time of this determination, an adequate fire risk assessment had not yet been carried out. She remains concerned about a lack of evacuation plans in place. This has primarily been handled by the local authority and fire service. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has made contact with the fire service independently, or considered employing its own specialist. These would have been reasonable steps to take to reduce delays. Given the vulnerabilities in the household and the significant changes made by the works, the landlord did not do enough to support the resident to address and resolve her concerns about fire safety. This was a failing.

The resident’s concerns about the building quality of the porch, cold and water ingress

The resident complained on 14 February 2025 that the new porch was cold, leaking, letting in drafts, and of generally poor quality. Some of these issues were caused by a faulty front door. The landlord raised an inspection of the flat roof of the porch on 20 February 2025 but later apologised that there were delays in inspecting and resolving the other issues. This was because the contractor that had built the porch and was responsible for rectifying outstanding issues had ceased trading and gone into liquidation on 3 March 2025.
This caused a delay until 9 April 2025 when the landlord’s legal position was resolved and it accepted responsibility for covering the costs of rectifying the defects.It was reasonable that the landlord required time to resolve this matter and later concludedthe delay wasoutside of its control. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and replaced the front door.
The repairs required to the roof were more extensive and required some planning. The landlord and resident were in conversation about erecting scaffolding to allow the roof works on 27 May 2025, demonstrating that the landlord progressed these works appropriately.
The resident also raised concerns that the structures were not built in line with building regulations. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating this to satisfy both itself and the resident that regulations had been complied with. The evidence supports the landlord’s account that the appropriate building regulation certificates had been obtained.
The resident wanted the landlord to instruct an independent surveyor as an outcome of this complaint. We have not found this to be necessary in this case. This is because the landlord acted appropriately by instructing its architect and surveyor to inspect on 29 May 2025. It found that although the works appeared reasonable, there were ‘many defects apparent that require immediate attention’, which it listed in detail.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord committed to providing the resident with a list of works that it would complete after the survey. The resident confirmed that the landlord did this but that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions since that time. The resident should raise these new concerns with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of a radiator installation in the porch

The resident complained that in addition to the drafts, there were not enough radiators. The landlord’s contractor measured for a new radiator in the porch on an unknown date in February 2025. It is unclear when it sent the quote to the landlord, because the quote was undated. The landlord declined the quote due to the cost, which was reasonable. However it did not inform the resident which caused frustration.
It told the resident it was in the process of getting a new quote in its stage 2 complaint response. It had done this on 25 April 2025 but had not received one by 29 May 2025. The landlord had first identified the need to install the radiator in September 2024, but at the time of this determination this remains outstanding. The reasons for the delays are unclear. The landlord has not appropriately managed the installation of this radiator. The time it has taken to resolve this matter is unreasonable and was a failing.

Conclusion and findings

The landlord often acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s concerns. The landlord has the right to rely on the opinion of its experts and it followed expert advice appropriately. It dealt with many concerns well, but several actions that should have been completed remained outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time. Not all of the decisions it made were reasonable.
The landlord offered £500 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for the stress, inconvenience, and delays caused by the failings this identified. However it did not go far enough to resolve the outstanding issues relating to the radiator, drains, high/low rise bath, hoist installation, and the resident’s fire safety concerns. This will have caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble at what was already a challenging and disruptive time for the resident. We acknowledge that this level of work needed to complete the extension was extensive and presented complexities to the landlord. However, the landlord missed opportunities in certain aspects to put things right for the resident and improve her experience.
The radiator installation has been outstanding since September 2024, making the property colder than intended and resulting in avoidable frustration, time and trouble to the resident. The landlord must pay a further £250 to the resident to reflect this. While the landlord appeared to respond appropriately with temporary fixes for the drains, the root cause has remained unresolved since at least November 2024. This has caused further frustration. The resident reports that the drains smell when blocked and has caused worry for the potential health impact to one of her sons. The landlord must pay a further £100 to the resident to reflect this. The resident has experienced avoidable distress and worry because of her fire safety concerns. The landlord has not adequately addressed these concerns and must pay a further £150 to the resident.
The landlord’s failings and delays around the installation of the high/low rise bath and hoist track have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should have worked promptly to resolve these issues as soon as they became apparent on 14 February 2025, but they remain unresolved. The landlord must pay an additional £500 to reflect the impact this has had on the resident. The landlord must pay a total of £1,500 compensation to the resident, which includes the £500 already offered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It was right to apologise that its stage 1 complaint response was 3 working days late. It also offered £25 compensation, which was reasonable. The landlord took 14 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response.
Our complaint handling code states that a landlord should respond to all elements of a complaint. It failed to do this at stage 1, which the resident was unhappy about. The landlord met with the resident in person, spoke to her on the phone, and corresponded with her by email when dealing with her stage 2 escalation request. It therefore took appropriate steps to prevent this from happening again at stage 2.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In view of the volume of works seen during the period we have assessed, the landlord’s record keeping was generally sufficient. There were notable areas where the landlord could improve its record keeping. For example, when using external contractors it did not always keep adequate records about the works done. At times this may have contributed to some repairs taking longer than they should have, such as the repairs to the drains.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that its communication with the resident and its handling of the concerns she raised may have been easier had it kept better records of its decision making processes. For example, in explaining why it made decisions to change some of the original plans. The evidence supports this and its commitment to conduct learning around this point was appropriate. In addition to this, the landlord may in future wish to take steps to ensure it conducts adequate investigations and consultations are done, before it deviates from any plans.

Communication

The landlord communicated with the resident often through her OT. This appeared to be a long standing arrangement and benefits of this were often seen. However, there were times when it would have been more appropriate to speak to the resident directly, such as when dealing with responsive repairs, or works that did not relate to the household’s adaptations. There were also instances where the landlord taking the time to ensure it clearly explained its decisions to the resident, may have prevented misunderstandings later on.