Inquilab Housing Association Limited (202125616)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125616

Inquilab Housing Association Limited

26 June 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and resides in a two-bedroom house. In March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she was a cancer patient and had some lung damage, and in March 2021, she informed it that she believed that the mould was affecting her lungs and breathing. In November 2021, she informed it that she was registered as disabled.
On 5 January 2022, the resident reported mould in her bathroom and reiterated her concerns about the effect of the mould on her damaged lungs and her breathing. In February 2022, she informed the landlord that she was unable to get through to it on its contact numbers and that it had failed to respond to any of her requests for contact. She then made a formal complaint on 8 February 2022, about the above.
The resident continued to pursue the landlord throughout February 2022, eventually contacting this Service during the same month. She advised that the landlord had not responded to her since January 2022, and had not acknowledged or responded to her formal complaint. She advised that she had called the landlord every day for the last three weeks and had only had one call answered, only to be told by its operative to call the landlord’s main contact number. This Service then wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2022, outlining the above and advised it that the resident wanted the mould in her bathroom treated and resolved, and advised it to respond to the resident. The landlord was advised that if the resident had not exhausted its internal complaints procedure, then it was to issue its response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord responded to this Service on 25 February 2022, explaining that it had contacted the resident and acknowledged her formal complaint. It said that it had carried out a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom on 20 January 2022, but she had then refused any further mould treatment. It had inspected her bathroom on 27 January 2022, and was now considering its options. It had informed the resident of this and that it was dealing with her formal complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure.
On 8 March 2022, the landlord raised a job to replace the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom to stop condensation and mould build up, and this job was completed on 21 March 2022. The resident informed it, on 22 March and 13 April 2022, that the mould washes and new fan had not helped, and that the mould wash had caused the paint to peel in her bathroom. The landlord advised her, on 22 April 2022, that it had raised a job for 6 May 2022 to survey her bathroom. The survey was carried out on 6 May 2022 by its specialist contractor. Mould was found forming around the bathroom windows and untiled areas of the bathroom walls. The finding was that the mould was being caused by condensation, and the recommendations were to repair/upgrade the extractor fan and to tile the untiled areas to stop mould growth, but that no specialist works were required.
The resident advised this Service, on 23 June 2022, that the landlord had not responded to her formal complaint. This Service contacted the landlord who subsequently issued its first-stage complaint response on 27 June 2022, in which it advised that it had carried out three mould washes of the resident’s bathroom since January 2022, and had replaced her extractor fan. It informed her of the survey findings and advised that it would upgrade her fan; it would not tile the untiled areas of her bathroom walls as she had refused this offer. It apologised for the time taken to respond to her complaint and advised that this had been due to it going through a significant period of change. It advised that it was working hard to get through the complaints and respond as quickly as it could.
The resident advised this Service on 5 August 2022 that she had escalated her complaint. She then informed this Service, on 2 September 2022, that the landlord had failed to issue her with its final-stage complaint response. This Service contacted the landlord who then issued its final-stage complaint response on 22 September 2022. In its response, it acknowledged and apologised for its failing to act in line with its customer service standards. It advised that although it had decided to upgrade her bathroom extractor fan, it had reversed this decision because tiling the untiled areas of the bathroom was more effective. It found that it had failed to communicate this decision to the resident and keep her updated.
The landlord accepted that it should not have cancelled the works without having spoken to the resident, and it should have responded to her stage one complaint faster than it had. It offered her a choice between a fan upgrade or tiling the untiled areas of the walls and advised that it would prioritise her chosen works. It offered her £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
The resident then contacted this Service on 6 December 2022. Her complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her reports of mould in her bathroom, and she wanted the landlord to treat the mould and strip her bathroom to allow for a full treatment.
Works were raised on 20 January 2023, and the landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 February 2023 and saw the mould. It attended again on 20 March 2023 to assess her bathroom extractor fan. On 14 April 2023, the landlord contacted this Service and advised that it had stripped the paint in the resident’s bathroom, treated the plasterwork and had redecorated the bathroom with mould resistant paint. It had upgraded her fan and would replace the loft boards and insulate her loft within a fortnight. It subsequently advised this Service on 1 June 2023 that the loft insulation would be installed on 12 June 2023.
The landlord advised this Service that this was the final repair that needed to be completed as a part of the resident’s complaint, and it advised that she was happy with the progression of her complaint and the appointments that had been made. It advised that it would contact her following the completion of the repairs to make sure that she was satisfied with the work that had been carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While it is noted that the resident had been reporting mould to the landlord since 2020, and that the landlord had carried out some repair works during 2020, it is outside the scope of this investigation to investigate the resident’s reports of mould from that date. This is because, in relation to the current complaint being investigated, the reports from 18 November 2020 to 24 March 2021 were not part of the landlord’s investigation during its internal complaints procedure. Under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the reports were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This investigation will therefore look at the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom from 5 January 2022 onwards.
Consideration will also be given to matters post the landlord’s final complaint response, as this response set out remedies, which were not completed until a significant amount of time after the response itself and this delay is directly relevant to the complaint.
While it is appreciated that the resident did make a formal complaint previously in relation to some of those reports mentioned, it is unclear whether that complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and the resident chose not to continue the complaint that she had raised with this Service at that time.
Although the resident has advised both the landlord and this Service that the mould in her bathroom had detrimental impact on her damaged lungs, it is beyond the scope of this investigation to determine what impact there has been on her damaged lungs by the landlord’s handling of her reports of mould in her bathroom. This is because under paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this concerns matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. However, this report will look at whether the landlord considered the impact of the mould on the resident’s health and acted accordingly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Additionally, according to the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp & Mould (2021), the landlord should ensure that it has a strategy in place to manage cases of mould, with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, and feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing.
This means that the landlord’s primary obligations would have been to assess whether the mould present in the resident’s bathroom was a hazard, and to ensure that the resident was kept informed about the actions that it intended to carry out to manage and remedy the mould.
The resident reported mould in her bathroom to the landlord on 5 January 2022. The landlord carried out an inspection of her bathroom on 27 January 2022, although it has not provided this Service with a copy of its inspection report. An inspection was carried out by its specialist contractor on 6 May 2022. While its contractor’s mould inspection report did not mention whether the mould would amount to a hazard, it would be reasonable to assume that a specialist contractor would have warned the landlord if this had been the case. The absence of any identified risks or concerns in the report, coupled with the contractor’s assessment that no specialist works were required, would reasonably imply that the mould did not amount to a hazard but would nevertheless require remedying. Additionally, the recommendations made in the contractor’s report were in relation to stopping further mould growth rather than a course of action to remove a hazard. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the landlord failed to carry out its obligation under the HHSRS to assess whether the mould in the resident’s bathroom amounted to a hazard.
In relation to the landlord’s obligation under Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp & Mould (2021), to keep the resident informed and reassured during that period, it is reasonable to assume that in order to carry out a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom, the landlord would have had to inform her about its intention to carry out the mould wash prior to the appointment on 20 January 2022. It would also have had to inform her about its planned inspection before that appointment on 27 January 2022. Therefore, during this period the landlord acted appropriately, as it did keep the resident informed and showed her its intent to keep progressing the matter.
According to the resident, she called the landlord every day between 3 February 2022 and 21 February 2022, using the various contact numbers that it had provided, but stated that almost all of her calls to it were not answered. She had further stated that it then failed to return her calls after being notified by her about the unanswered calls. If the resident’s version of events is accurate then the landlord should have made sure that at least one of its relevant contact numbers had been appropriately manned. It should have also contacted the resident after being advised of its non-responsiveness.
According to the evidence provided by the landlord, the next time that it may have updated the resident about progress on her reports of mould, would have been between 17 February and 8 March 2022. This is because the resident pursued the landlord for an update on 17 February 2022, and on 25 February 2022, the landlord informed this Service that it had contacted the resident and acknowledged her formal complaint. On 3 March 2022, she pursed the landlord for an update, and on 8 March 2022, it raised a job to replace the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom.
Therefore, both versions of events seem to imply that the landlord’s next update to the resident was either on or after 17 February 2022. This means that there was a period of at least three weeks during which time the landlord failed to keep the resident informed about what its plans were going forward, to manage the mould problem. Considering the resident had stated that she was concerned about the effect of the mould on her health, this should have led to the landlord taking the matter more seriously, and as a result it should have contacted her more frequently, to evidence that it was treating her case as a priority because of her concerns, and that it would maintain regular contact even if there were no updates, to provide reassurance.
The overall pattern of behaviour displayed by the landlord, indicates that while it did carry out works within a reasonable time, up until its first-stage response, it did not keep the resident updated and only contacted her when it had to arrange appointments for works to be carried out. This was a failing by it to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to keeping her updated and informed.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states, under section 4.13, that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs will be completed within an average of 20 working days. The policy goes on to state under Appendix 1, that emergency repairs are repairs that are needed to remove immediate danger and/or health and safety risks to the resident within their property, and/or to avoid any major damage to the property and/or make the property secure. According to this definition, because the mould found by the landlord’s specialist contractor’s inspection of the resident’s bathroom was found to be caused by condensation, and not an underlying issue that would have had an immediate risk of danger, the mould would not be classified as an emergency, and therefore, the landlord should have completed the mould works within an average of 20 working days.
This means that since the resident reported the mould in her bathroom to the landlord on 5 January 2022, the landlord should have ideally completed the repairs around 1 February 2022 to comply with it repairs and maintenance policy. It did attend the resident’s property on 20 January 2022 and carry out a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom. Its contractor did subsequently carry out an inspection of the bathroom on 27 January 2022. These were appropriate actions at that time, carried out in line with the timescales specified in its repairs policy. It completed works which it believed at that time would have resolved the issue, and its contractor then assessed whether the mould had been resolved.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to have carried out temporary measures such as multiple mould washes in the resident’s bathroom while it considered more permanent solutions to resolve the mould that was being caused by condensation. This is because it is acknowledged that, in some cases, it may have to carry out several different actions to determine the cause of the mould and to resolve it. This would not constitute a service failure if the actions were carried out within a reasonable amount of time and the next steps and expectations were made clear.
The landlord has not clearly stated why it took it almost two months between 27 January 2022 and 21 March 2022 to determine that the next best course of action was to replace the resident’s bathroom extractor fan. However, the landlord did say that after 20 January 2022, the resident had refused further mould wash treatments, and this would have impeded its ability to apply a temporary resolution albeit short-term. Additionally, it had to consider the evidence that it had gathered from its previous resolution attempts. Once it had decided to replace the fan, the time taken to order and replace the fan on a mutually convenient date, deemed the two months timeframe somewhat reasonable.
It is also noted that one of the recommendations given by the landlord’s contractor following their inspection of the resident’s bathroom on 6 May 2022, had been for the untiled areas of the resident’s bathroom walls be tiled to stop mould growth. The landlord noted that the resident had refused its offer to tile the relevant areas, and this would have affected its efforts to stop the mould growth on the bathroom walls at that time. The landlord cannot be held accountable where the resident refuses an offer of reasonable works being carried out to resolve the mould, and in this case, tiling the relevant portion was reasonable. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that it was not the intention of the resident to impede resolution of the mould growth, her actions would have unfortunately had this effect.
Much of the delay to the works appears to have taken place after the landlord’s first-stage complaint response on 27 June 2022. This started with the landlord’s decision to cancel the upgrade of the resident’s bathroom extractor fan, and no further works were carried out during the period of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. While it did offer the resident the choice between having the relevant portions of her bathroom walls tiled or having her bathroom extractor fan upgraded in its final-stage complaint response on 22 September 2022, a job for this work and the other agreed repairs was not raised until 20 January 2023.
This was not appropriate because while the landlord had accepted in its final-stage complaint response that there had been a delay to works being completed, and that it should have consulted the resident before cancelling the agreed job to upgrade her bathroom extractor fan, it failed to keep her updated. The landlord should have replaced the resident’s extractor fan as agreed and kept her updated. It should have carried out its assessment of whether replacing the fan was the most effective way of stopping mould growth before it had committed to carrying out this action. It did acknowledge and apologise for this failing and acknowledged that it had failed to act in line with its customer service standards; however, this was not reasonable redress because this was not proportionate to the impact upon the resident in terms of time and inconvenience as she had to continuously pursue it for updates. As a result, it also failed to manage her expectations in relation to what actions it would carry out to stop the mould.
All works agreed during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure were then completed between 20 March and 14 April 2023. This means that there was an unreasonable delay in completing the works, of almost nine months from 7 June 2022, up until the completion of works. While the landlord did try to remedy this in its final-stage complaint response on 22 September 2022, there was still almost a four-month delay between that time and it actually raising a job on 20 January 2023 to complete the agreed upon works. No evidence has been provided to show that during this time the landlord kept the resident updated. It has also not offered any explanation as to why a job was not raised until January 2023.
Therefore, this was an unreasonable delay by the landlord to complete the agreed upon works within a reasonable amount of time. In this case, after its final-stage complaint response, the landlord should have raised a job and completed the outstanding works by 19 October 2022, to meet the 20 working days timeframe, set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. While there is some mitigation because the landlord raising a job to complete the works would have been dependent on the resident informing it of her choice, between the works that it had offered to carry out to stop the mould, it should have been more proactive in obtaining a response from her if she had not provided one.
This is because there was an obligation upon the landlord to complete the works within its repairs and maintenance policy timescales. To manage expectations, what the landlord should have done was to give the resident a timeframe in its final-stage complaint response, which would have set out its expectations of her in relation to her informing it of her choice of works.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp & Mould (2021) states that landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. It goes on to say that landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed.
The landlord should therefore have addressed the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health from the mould in her bathroom due to its delays in completing the works. It should have explained whether it had considered this, and then it should have referred her claim to its liability insurers for her claim to be properly addressed. While this was a failing by the landlord, it can redress this by now referring her claim to its liability insurers and it is recommended to do so below.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy under section 9, states that the landlord may offer compensation as a goodwill gesture where it believes this to be morally appropriate, but without recognising any liability or obligation to do so, and this is at the discretion of the relevant manager. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture, and this was the minimum amount that it could offer as a goodwill gesture. Considering that there were several failures by the landlord, namely the length of time taken to complete outstanding works; its failure to keep the resident updated, specifically about its decision not to upgrade her bathroom extractor fan; and its poor communication when it failed to both answer her numerous calls and call her back; £50 compensation as recognition of these failings is unreasonable.
In relation to the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy only gives amounts for compensation that would be awarded as a goodwill gesture. In this case therefore, determining compensation will be based solely on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration by the landlord, between £100 to £600 compensation is appropriate where the landlord’s failings have no permanent impact on the resident. This includes failings that the landlord has acknowledged and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident, and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. In this case, there was some mitigation in that the resident refused the tiling works to the relevant portions of her bathroom walls. However, the landlord’s failings noted above were still unreasonable.
The landlord is therefore ordered below to pay the resident £150 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It is also ordered below to pay the resident £100 compensation for its delay in completing the outstanding mould works at the resident’s property, from the completion of its internal complaints procedure on 22 September 2022, up until the works were completed between 20 March 2023 and 14 April 2023.
This means that the total amount of compensation that the landlord is ordered to pay the resident in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom, is £300 compensation inclusive of the £50 compensation that it previously awarded her as a goodwill gesture if it has not paid this to her already. The landlord is to also contact this Service and advise whether the works to the loft boards and loft insulation have now been completed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Policies and procedures

Section 5.5 of the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that the landlord will acknowledge receipt of a resident’s formal complaint within two working days, and then issue its first-stage complaint response within ten working days of receipt of the resident’s formal complaint. The same section also states that the landlord will issue its final-stage complaint response within ten working days of it receiving a request from the resident to progress their complaint to the landlord’s final complaint stage.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states under sections 5.1 and 5.2, that the landlord must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
Sections 5.13 and 5.14 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code state that the landlord must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on 8 February 2022. This means that the landlord should have issued its first-stage complaint response by 21 February 2022 to meet the ten working days timeframe as per its complaints and compensation policy. The landlord failed to do this. In response, the resident contacted this Service on 21 February 2022, who then contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on the same day. This Service advised the landlord that if the resident’s complaint had not exhausted its internal complaints procedure, then to issue the resident with its complaint response within its complaints and compensation policy timescales.
The landlord advised this Service on 25 February 2022 that it had now acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint. This was a failing by the landlord because according to its complaints and compensation policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within two working days of receipt of her complaint. This means that the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 10 February 2022.
The landlord also advised this Service on 25 February 2022 that it was now dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage one of its internal complaints procedure. The resident then contacted this Service on 23 June 2022, and advised that she had still not received the landlord’s first-stage response to her formal complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on the same day and advised it to issue its response within five working days. The landlord then issued its first-stage complaint response on 27 June 2022, which was 96 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. This was not appropriate because this was well beyond the ten working days specified in its complaints and compensation policy. While it did explain that the delay had been caused by it going through a significant period of change, this does not explain why it still took 96 working days for the landlord to issue its first-stage complaint response.
If the fact that the landlord had gone through a significant period of change is accepted as mitigation, then this mitigation can only apply to its actions between 8 February and 25 February 2022, which was the date on which it advised this Service that it had acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint. This is because, once it had acknowledged the complaint there was no reason for it not to apply the rest of its complaints procedure. If it had been unable to do this, then it could have taken advantage of the exception set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which would have given it an additional ten working days to issue its response, if it had good reason to do so and had also given the resident a clear timeframe by when she could expect its response.
Alternatively, if the landlord needed more time to respond to the resident’s complaint fully, it could have come to an agreement with her in respect to a date by which she could expect its response, as per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has provided no explanation for why it failed to take either of these options and instead left the resident without any updates, which inconvenienced her as she then had to spend time pursuing it for updates to her complaint and also contacting this Service.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 August 2022, and the landlord issued its final-stage complaint response on 22 September 2022, after intervention by this Service. This was 34 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint, and this was in excess of the ten working days timeframe set out in its complaints and compensation policy. This means that according to that policy, the landlord should have issued its final-stage complaint response by 18 August 2022. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must issue its final-stage complaint response within 20 working days of the resident’s complaint being escalated. This means that the landlord actually had up until 1 September 2022 to issue its response, but it failed to issue its response within that time.
While in its final-stage complaint response, the landlord apologised for the time and inconvenience suffered by the resident due to the time it had taken it to respond to her complaint, it did not explain what had caused the delay in its response. Therefore, there was a failing by the landlord in its complaint handling.
This failure inconvenienced and impacted the resident because she had to spend an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord for updates to her complaint, and additionally had to spend time contacting and requesting this Service to intervene with the landlord to get it to issue both its first stage and final-stage complaint responses. This was a result of the landlord’s poor communication during its internal complaints procedure which subsequently left the resident with no recourse but to request this Service to intervene. It is concerning that this Service had to intervene twice.
After the first intervention by this Service, the landlord should have taken steps to make sure that another intervention would not be needed regarding its final-stage complaint response. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the landlord learned from its initial failure to respond within its complaints and compensation policy timeframes and keep the resident updated, or that it had taken steps to make sure that another intervention by this Service would not be needed.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there is maladministration by the landlord that had no permanent impact on the resident, then between £100 to £600 compensation is appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings and attempted to put them right, but its redress was not proportionate to the failings. In this case, £300 compensation is determined to be appropriate. This is because the landlord failed to apply the timescales set out in its complaints and compensation policy when issuing both of its complaints responses. It failed to keep the resident updated about the status of her complaint at both stages, and this Service had to intervene to progress the resident’s complaint on both occasions.

Determination

Under Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident £600 compensation, which includes its previous goodwill gesture of £50 compensation if it has not paid this to her already, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for its failings in the handling of mould in the resident’s bathroom.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling failings.
2. Set out a plan for staff training in relation to its complaints procedure, specifically around response timeframes and keeping residents updated about the status of their complaints.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Refer the resident’s claim about the impact on her health from the mould in her bathroom due to the landlord’s failure to complete the works within a reasonable time, to its liability insurers for her claim to be appropriately assessed.
2. Advise whether the works to the loft boards and loft insulation have now been completed.
The landlord is to contact this Service within four weeks of the date of this report, to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.