East End Homes Limited (202017580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017580

East End Homes Limited

20 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of flooding at his property and the associated damage.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He holds a joint tenancy with his partner. His partner and his son are disabled. For the purpose of this report all the household members will be referred to as “the resident”. The resident’s English is limited and he uses his daughter to translate.
The property is a ground floor 3 bedroom maisonette.
According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord will insure the home (the block) and any fitting and fixture, but the resident is responsible for insuring his own contents and any other items for which he has responsibility.
The repair policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, this including the drains, gutters and external pipes.
According to the repair policy, it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the premises in good decorative condition.
As per its policy, the landlord should respond to an emergency repair within one hour and complete or make safe within 24 hours. For severe storm or flood damage, it would raise an order to make safe or investigate. Routine repairs should be responded and completed within 28 calendar days.
Para 1.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, caused through its failure to achieve a specified level of service, or to address a particular failure or action for which it is responsible. Para 1.3. states that the landlord aims to make it easy to make a complaint by providing a range of means to do so and by providing a timely response which addresses any service delivery failures.
Para 2.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy explains that an expression of dissatisfaction which is also called an informal complaint, is an issue which is raised and resolved at a first point of contact.
A Stage One complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction that is not able to be resolved at first contact and requires investigation and a full written response.
The landlord operates two stages of complaints process. At stage one it sends a response within 10 working days and at stage two a response is due within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord aims to deliver quality service but where it fails to do so it will consider making a discretionary offer of compensation or gesture of good will.
The compensation policy also states that compensation will not be considered for claims of damage caused by circumstances beyond the landlord’s control (i.e. through flooding) or where the service user can claim compensation through their own insurance policy.
On 16 August 2020, during extremely heavy rain, the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service twice to report flooding at the property. The initial report was about a back surge to the kitchen and bathroom. Later the same evening, in another telephone call, the resident reported flooding from “the tap” in the bathroom.
The landlord raised two orders – one for the drainage to be checked and one with a plumber for the bathroom. According to internal correspondence, the plumber attended the next day at 12.30pm but did not get access to the property. This was, however, logged in error against 16 August 2020 in the repairs log.
The drainage operative attended the property on the same evening, of 16 August 2020. The same evening, the landlord also received out of hours requests from the neighbouring property with similar issues due to the heavy rain and blocked manholes. The operative attended both properties, but he only left a note logged against the neighbouring one, rather than the resident’s property. At a later stage the operative’s manager confirmed to the landlord that the note left against the other property related to the resident’s property.
As per internal correspondence, the operative cleared the internal blockage and explained that it was likely to be a water company issue. The landlord raised it with the water company and the next day operatives attended and said that it was “a single property issue” and not their pipes. There is no clear evidence of who was liable for the blocked manholes following the heavy rain.
On 19 August 2020,following further contact from the resident, the landlord raised an order for an Aquavac and dehumidifier. This was completed on 20 August 2020. Another dehumidifier was supplied on 21 August 2020 and the landlord advised the resident to lift the carpets so that the water captured under the affected areas could dry faster.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord raised a job for all the manholes around the affected properties to be checked and unblocked where necessary, which was completed on 15 October 2020 (as per repair log), or 24 August 2020 (as per internal correspondence).
Following reports from the resident on 25 August 2020 about the detriment of the flooding on the vulnerable members of his family and the smell coming from the carpets, the landlord attended the property again, lifted the carpets and supplied another dehumidifier. It responded that once the property dries, it would assess the damages and take further action.
As a result of the flooding, the resident also reported:
1. damage to the carpets
2. water stain on all the walls in the property
3. damp and dirt on the bathroom walls
4. bathroom floorboard damp and rotted
5. floorboards upstairs damp and rotted
6. damage to the cooker
7. damage to the microwave, deep freezer and some personal items.
On 28 August 2020, the landlord checked the gas pipe to the cooker and confirmed the cooker was operational.
The landlord inspected the property on 03 September 2020 and agreed works to the bathroom, kitchen (kitchen cupboard doors) and stairway to be carried out. It reported no damage to the carpets in the living room or bedrooms. It also informed the resident that any damage to personal items, including carpets should be claimed under his home contents insurance.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord further clarified to the resident’s social worker in her capacity as representative at the time, that it had become aware the resident did not have any home contents insurance and it had advised him of the option to bring a compensation claim to the landlord’s consideration.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord offered as a good will gesture to replace the damaged carpets. It also advised the resident to consider home contents insurance in case of future similar events. It confirmed that the cooker was functional.
By 21 September 2020, the landlord completed the following jobs:
1. Bathroom door was replaced.
2. The mastic sealant around the bath and bathroom floor was renewed.
3. Mould and stain wash completed under the stairs and awaiting instruction from the resident for a paint colour.
4. The asbestos floor tiles were removed and air test completed.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s social worker to confirm completion of the above works and to explain that the outstanding repairs left were the ones to the kitchen doors. It also said that it had not received any confirmation from the resident regarding the offer to change the damaged carpet.
On 30 September 2020, the kitchen doors were fitted and on 01 October 2020, the landlord again asked the resident about its decision regarding the offer to part change the damaged carpet. The resident responded on the same day that there had been damages to his property since 16 August 2020 and asked the landlord to visit as he was dissatisfied with the standard of the works completed.
Following email correspondence between the resident and the landlord, and after another visit to the resident’s property, on 14 October 2020 the landlord agreed to reattend some minor repairs where the resident was dissatisfied. It also confirmed that the only areas it was offering to replace the carpets were in the hallway downstairs, staircase and the upstairs landing.
On 16 October 2020, the resident raised his dissatisfaction in email to the landlord explaining:
1. He was not satisfied with the landlord’s dealing with his reports following 16 August 2020.
2. The decoration was not done properly.
3. The whole carpet was damaged.
4. His son and wife were disabled. The smell from the carpet and the damage further affected their mobility.
5. His home looked dirty and there was further damage to his property.
The landlord inspected the property again on 16 October 2020 and responded on 20 October 2020. It said:
1. It appreciated that the events from 16 August 2020 might have been very distressing for the resident and his family. However, it did not accept any liability. It explained that neighbouring properties were affected by the same event and it was likely to be the water company’s responsibility for the incident.
2. It confirmed its advice about the home contents insurance. It took no responsibility for the damage of any items arising from the incident. However, as a good will gesture it agreed to replace the carpet in the damaged areas.
3. The resident had been informed about progressing the carpet issue in the presence of a family member who was translating during its inspection. The resident had also been told the same by a member of the landlord’s staff in his native language. It confirmed the resident had been offered to choose from a selection of carpets and asked the resident to do so at his earliest convenience. Alternatively, it provided him with an option of having the carpet in the damaged areas replaced by his own contractor and then reimbursed according to the landlord’s rates.
Following a letter from the resident of 27 October 2020, which this service has not seen, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. It provided a timeline of events from 16 August 2020. It accepted that it had not been provided with access on the 16 August 2020 (referring to the plumber “ no access” note) and therefore, could not take responsibility for the damage to the property and the personal items.
2. It referred to the tenancy agreement which provided initial advice at the start of tenancy for each tenant to take home contents insurance.
3. In its inspection of 03 September 2020, it had established that the flood had started at the bathroom and in the kitchen, and affected the upstairs landing staircase and downstairs hallway. There was no evidence of damage to the living room or bedrooms. The landlord agreed at the time to complete some works to the flooring, decoration, bathroom and kitchen. Additional minor works were agreed after the inspection of 16 October 2020.
4. As a good will gesture, it would arrange to replace the carpet in the affected areas once the resident accepted the offer.
5. With regards to any claim for compensation, it would not take responsibility as the most damage was as a result of no access to the property on 16 August 2020.
On 17 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that he had got a recording of an operative attending the property in the evening of 16 August 2020. The resident was dissatisfied with the co-operation from the landlord. He raised concerns again about the disabilities of his family members and the damage to the items. The cooker particularly out of five burners had only two working. The resident explained that for the period using the dehumidifiers, the electrical bills had been increased. The resident wanted the landlord to carry out:
1. carpet replacement for all floors
2. replacement of five burners on the cooker
3. Magnolia painting for the entire property.
Following an exchange of some correspondence and evidence provided by the resident that the contractors attended his property on 16 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2020. It said:
1. On 16 August 2020 two jobs were raised: one for the resident’s property and one for the neighbouring. The contractors assigned to the neighbouring property had attended both properties, and as the issue had been connected, they had only provided a report for the neighbouring one and did not log anything against the resident’s property.
2. It apologised for the error but did not change its position with regards to full carpet replacement and full property decoration as these were items to be claimed under his home contents insurance.
3. It offered as a good will gesture to change the carpet in the affected areas and £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the flood to the resident and his family.
On 3 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord that he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation and the part replacement of the carpet. He said that this would not cover all the damage caused and that he was unhappy with the standard of works as the landlord had to do them twice on a couple of occasions. He also raised issues about damaged decking two and a half years ago following landlord’s works.
The landlord responded on 4 January 2021. It confirmed its position for the repairs and the damaged items, but increased the compensation to £500.
In further correspondence, the landlord forwarded the details of its senior member of staff to deal with the compensation claim and on 30 January 2021, the resident wrote to request compensation of £15,028.00, comprising of:
1. £10,778 for the damage to the property and belongings following the incident on 16 August 2020, these included damage to a microwave, a deep freezer, a living room sofa; and
2. £4250 for damage to the decking and belongings following works in the resident’s garden.
The landlord responded on 01 March 2021. It apologised for its delay but did not change its position.
In March 2021, there was further correspondence from the resident’s physiotherapist with the request to the landlord to fully decorate and replace the carpet and to offer compensation for damage. The resident also contacted the Housing Ombudsman for assistance with his complaint. He was dissatisfied with:
1. The following repair works:
  1. replacement of the carpet
  2. water stain and mould on all the walls in the property
  3. damp and dirt on the bathroom walls
  4. bathroom floorboard damp and rotted
  5. floorboards upstairs damp and rotted
  6. bathtub rim broken and dirty.
2. The compensation offered for damage to the cooker, damage to the microwave, deep freezer and some personal items.
The landlord did not raise a formal complaint until this Service contacted it on 31 March 2021. It then conducted an inspection on 14 April 2021 and responded at stage one of its internal process on 19 April 2021. It said in its response:
1. It found no fault in its immediate action following the incident of 16 April 2020.
2. It had provided the Aquavac and dehumidifiers within 24 hours of the resident’s reports.
3. After the property had dried, the repairs it identified in its inspection of 3 September had been dealt with except for the carpet. During the inspection, it had been established that the water had saturated the landing, the stairs and the downstairs hallway. On 29 October the landlord had offered to part replace the carpet on the water damaged areas only, but the resident had not accepted the offer.
4. In its inspection of 14 April 2021, it had identified no mould or stains at the understairs wall as it had been recently decorated. It also had not identified any issue with the bathtub rim. It identified mould in the bathroom ceiling and raised an order for a mould wash.
5. In its inspection of 3 September 2020 and 14 April 2021, it had not identified any mould or rotten floorboards upstairs. However, due to removing and covering the carpet adjacent to the bathroom in the aftermath of the flooding and due to the delay in replacing the carpet, the area had become a trip hazard. The landlord had raised an order for the area to be made safe until the resident made a decision about the carpet.
6. The cooker had been inspected on 25 August 2020, and had found that it was in working order.
7. It confirmed its position that the damages to the other items, personal belongings and the carpet were not its responsibility as the resident could have claimed them under his home content insurance. It referred to the tenancy agreement and recommended again the resident to take a home contents insurance to avoid any possible damage to personal goods in future.
8. It reoffered its good will gesture of £500 and part replacement of the water damaged carpet. It acknowledged that the resident had changed the carpet downstairs in the hallway and living room with laminate as per its inspection of 14 April 2021.
9. It provided information on how to progress the complaint to stage two panel review and asked the resident to provide reasons for escalation.
On 10 May 2021, the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated to stage two because the landlord had not taken his complaint into “consideration”.
The landlord’s chief executive responded at stage one again on 11 June 2021. It said:
1. It acknowledged the delay in responding and apologised.
2. It acknowledged the effect the incident could have got to the resident and his disabled family members.
3. It clarified the errors in the repairs log and its initial assumption of the events from 16 August 2020 due to “no access” from the plumber. It was, however, satisfied how it had responded to the reports of back surge as its operative had attended and resolved internally the issue the same evening.
4. It had not been possible to assess whether the water company or the landlord were responsible and who owned the pipes which caused the back surge but generally the issues had been caused due to the heavy rainfall.
5. It had failed to act in a timely manner regarding removing the water following the incident. The assistance with the water removal, Aquavac and dehumidifiers should have started on the same evening of 16 August 2020, rather than a few days later.
6. With regards to the support provided to the resident in the weeks and months following the incident in terms of drying up and repairs:
  1. On 20 August 2020, the landlord had assessed further the impact of the back surge and despite the use of aquavac it had found the hallway carpets to be very wet as water had been trapped underneath them and on the floor tiles. The landlord had assisted the resident with lifting the carpets up. It had also removed the asbestos tiles in case they had become damaged.
  2. It reviewed the range of works following its inspections on 3 September 2020 and 14 April 2021. All the works from 3 September 2020 had been completed. Work orders had been raised for the ones identified on 14 April 2021.
7. With regards to the damages reported to the electrical items, sofa and carpet, the landlord again took no responsibility and explained that this could have been claimed under the home contents insurance. It appreciated the resident did not have such an insurance, and as a good will gesture reoffered to replace the carpet in the water damaged areas.
8. It considered the compensation of £500 previously offered as reasonable but admitted that it had not taken into account the additional distress experienced by the resident’s household given the level of disability of the resident’s son and the impact of the situation on him and the family as a whole. Additionally, it acknowledged the change of carpet with laminate downstairs. Hence, it offered an increase in compensation to a total of £700.
9. It admitted that it could have raised the complaint at an earlier stage under its formal process and this could have saved the resident some time and trouble. It awarded £100 compensation.
10. If the resident was dissatisfied with its response, he should provide the reasons why. If the reason was only the level of compensation, the review panel was unlikely to consider higher compensation and therefore, this response should put the end of its process. The landlord referred the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 November 2021. He was dissatisfied with the level of compensation as he said it was not enough to replace the damaged items.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This service has no evidence to decide on who is responsible for the flooding. There was a dispute about who owned the pipes (the water company or the landlord) that caused the back surge during the heavy rain. Only the courts or insurance companies would have the required expertise to make findings of liability in these circumstances. However, we can look into the landlord’s immediate response to the resident’s reports of flooding and the action taken in the aftermath of the flooding.

Response to the resident’s reports of flooding at his property and the associated damage

The resident reported the back surge in the evening of 16 August 2020. Despite the human error in the repairs log from 16 and 17 August 2020 and the confusion the “no access” note caused in its later correspondence, there is no dispute that the landlord sent an operative on the same day, and in a few hours of reporting the incident.
As such, the landlord responded to the resident’s out of hours report in line with its policy which allows the landlord to complete an emergency repair or make safe within 24 hours of a report. Additionally, it sent further operatives to investigate the next day and raised the issue with the water company. The landlord took reasonable action to respond to the resident’s reports and this Service finds no service failure in terms of its immediate response.
The landlord also acted appropriately and in accordance with the provisions of its compensation policy and the tenancy agreement in informing the resident that a claim for damaged possessions, carpets and electrical items should be made under his home contents insurance. It was unfortunate that the resident did not have such insurance. However, the landlord had no responsibility or obligation to pay for the damages caused by the back surge. As per its compensation policy the landlord would not consider compensation for damages caused by circumstances beyond its control.
It was also appropriate that the landlord provided further information on the home contents insurance and recommended that the resident insure their belongings in order to avoid similar future events.
In the following days and weeks of the incident, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s requests. It inspected the property and supplied necessary equipment. It advised the resident to lift the carpets so that the affected areas could dry faster, and later assisted with this. However, the supply of dehumidifiers and Aquavac was delayed. Given the severity of the flooding and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for these items to be provided at an earlier stage, and on 16-17 August 2020, rather than on 20 August 2020. Additionally, it would have been reasonable in those circumstances for the landlord to assist with lifting the carpets at an earlier stage. However, the landlord recognised this failure in its final response and the landlord admitted that it could have done more at an earlier stage.
The landlord also failed to identify and investigate in a timely manner its assumption of the “no access” issue and thus provided contradictory information to the resident in its initial correspondence. The landlord admitted the error in its final response and apologised for it. It also provided correct information regarding the repair attendance but failed to consider the confusion its earlier responses caused the resident and the effect on his expectations. This was unreasonable and it contributed to extensive and confusing correspondence and further delays.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its delays in supplying the drying equipment. It additionally inspected the property and assisted with lifting of the carpets. In its final response it recognised that it could have considered at an earlier stage the impact of the incident due to the vulnerabilities of the resident’s family. It apologised and offered a compensation for the distress and inconvenience this had caused. This was a reasonable and resolution orientated approach.
The landlord put things right by carrying out the works which arose following the incident and which were identified in the landlord’s inspections of 3 September 2020. It had revisited a couple of the repairs but all the works were completed in a timely manner and within the timeframes for responsive repairs as per the provisions of its repairs policy.
The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approached by offering as a good will gesture to part replace the damaged carpet, and to wash and paint under the stairs, which it had no obligation to do. The carpet replacement was not completed due to the resident disputing the landlord’s decision and requesting for the whole carpet to be replaced. It was also reasonable for the landlord to complete the works which were raised following its inspection of 14 April 2021 to make safe the hazard caused by the prolonged lack of carpet upstairs in front of the bathroom.
The landlord initially offered compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience the incident caused to the resident. It used its discretion and increased it in its final response with a further £200 in recognition of the impact the situation might have had on the vulnerable members of the family.
The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to its accepted failures. This Service is satisfied that when awarding compensation, the landlord has taken into account the impact the incident and the landlord’s following actions had on the resident and the circumstances of the family and their vulnerabilities.
The combination of the landlord’s apology, works carried out and compensation awarded represented appropriate redress for the service failures identified in the way it responded in the aftermath of the flooding: the error in the repair logs, the delay in providing drying equipment. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it was fair in its assessment of the service failure and took steps to put things right.
However, the landlord has not provided any details to the resident about whether it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings do not occur in the future.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident contacted the landlord on many occasions to chase repairs and further action in relation to the carpet in September 2020. He then raised his concerns of dissatisfaction on 16 October 2020. This was followed up by further correspondence and letters on 27 October 2020 (this Service has not seen this letter) and 17 November 2020. The landlord responded to the letters but it failed to recognise and raise the issues as a formal complaint until this Service contacted it on 31 March 2021. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy which states that the expression of dissatisfaction will be considered as a formal complaint.
The landlord responded at stage one on 19 April 2021. This was delayed by three days. Following the escalation request of 10 May 2021, it responded again at stage one on 11 June 2021, with a minor delay of three days. The delays were inappropriate as they were outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy.
It was also inappropriate that following its stage one response of 19 April 2021 and the resident’s escalation request of 10 May 2021, its Chief Executive again responded at stage one, rather than stage two. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy where stage two is reviewed by a panel. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code and the landlord’s policy allow the landlord to refuse to escalate a complaint where the landlord provides clear reasons for it. However, in these circumstances the Chief Executive response provided a review of the complaint, rather than a reason for no escalation to a review panel.
The landlord admitted that its failures to raise the complaint and the delays in responding caused additional time and trouble to the resident, apologised and offered £100 compensation. However, it did not demonstrate that it had learned from the outcome to ensure similar failings did not occur in future. This was inappropriate and not in line with the dispute resolution principles.
Whilst the landlord admitted some failures, it failed to identify and explain the reason for issuing two stage one responses and why the resident’s complaint was not escalated as per its policy.
Whilst this may not have changed the outcome, the resident was deprived of the opportunity for his complaint to be considered by a panel as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. This Service promotes a fair and open access to the complaints process and therefore, finds that the second stage one response was inappropriate and not in line with the Dispute Resolution principle of being fair.
The landlord failed to learn from the acknowledged failures in its complaint handling: the failure to raise a formal complaint and the delays in its responses. The landlord did not provide the resident with an opportunity for its complaint to be reviewed by a panel and as such it acted unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy. Hence, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for additional compensation and staff training has been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for the failures identified in its response to their reports of flooding at the property and the associated damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

There is no evidence of failure by the landlord in its immediate repairs response to the resident’s reports of flooding, and therefore, no obligation to compensate the resident for any damaged possessions.
The landlord admitted its failures in its final response of delays in providing drying equipment and support in the aftermath of the flooding. It was overall resolution focused: it assisted with lifting up the carpets in order to facilitate the proceed of drying, it completed the repairs identifies as a result of the flooding in a timely manner, it offered to replace the carpet in the damaged areas and offered compensation for its failures and in recognition of the resident’s circumstances. The combination of those action provided a reasonable redress.
The landlord failed to learn from the complaint handling failures, which identified in its final response, and particularly the failure to raise the complaint and the minor delays in its responses. It also failed to follow its process and either provide a review of the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, by a panel, or be clear if it had rejected the escalation request.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £950. This is comprised of:
1. £800 previously offered if it has not already been paid.
2. A further £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in its complaint handling do not occur in future

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended within four weeks of this report to review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings like errors in repair logs or delays in providing drying equipment following flooding do not occur in future.
It is also recommended that the landlord provide training to its front line staff in relation to recognising the impact of any repair issues on vulnerable tenants and how best to approach those repairs.