London Borough of Hounslow (202122234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122234

London Borough of Hounslow

26 March 2024

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Anti-social behaviour including reported noise nuisance and drug–related activity.
2. Heating.
3. Plumbing.
4. Rubbish and bin chutes.
5. Risk and safety to residents and housing officer contact details.
6. The associated complaint including a requested reasonable adjustment.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a flat on an estate.
On 11 October 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She raised concerns about heating, plumbing, anti-social behaviour, rubbish and bin chutes, risk and safety to residents and housing officer contact details. The issues raised included:
1. Heating – the resident stated that she had been raising issues about heating in her flat for several years. These included constant leaks, to timers not working, the heaters still radiating heat even when switched off, to not coming on and no control over temperature as the thermostat did not work. She had also previously requested for the size of her radiator to be changed.
2. Plumbing – she stated that her and other residents’ sinks were always getting blocked.
3. Noise nuisance- She explained that there is a football pitch close to her property where young people cause nuisance, often playing loudly, and shouting.
4. Drug-related activity – The resident stated that people were dealing and taking drugs in their cars and on the benches near her property.
5. Bin chutes – She also explained that since the bin chutes have been closed, she has been unable to throw her rubbish away regularly as the closest bin is now a 10-minute walk from her flat.
6. Rubbish – She also stated that people have been throwing rubbish out of their windows and off their balconies for years, and since the bin chutes were closed, this has increased, and it is unpleasant coming across used nappies.
7. Risk and safety to other residents- The resident also raised that there are people living in her block of flats that cause a risk and safety to other residents. She explained that she has raised concerns about the neighbour living above her on several occasions. She stated within one year there had been 3 incidents of property being damaged including an incident where her neighbour left her cooker on, and she had to call the emergency services.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord provided a written response to the resident’s complaint. The following was included in the response:
1. The landlord explained that it was unable to change the radiator to a smaller size, as the current radiator is suitable for the size of the room, and also stated that as the thermostat is not faulty it would not be able to move it for decorative purposes. However, the landlord suggested fitting a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV) to control the temperature of the room.
2. It stated in relation to the plumbing issue, she should log any issues with the repairs team, so it could investigate any blockage of the drains.
3. The landlord explained that it had CCTV covering the football pitch and if correct time and dates were provided, it could request the footage to view and report the nuisance to the police. The landlord stated it recommended all nuisances to be reported to the enforcement team. It also explained that it currently has an arrangement with the enforcement team to patrol the area, and it would contact them to increase their patrols. In addition, it stated that for any reports regarding drug taking or dealing the resident should contact the police, so it can patrol the area.

It stated in response to the resident’s concerns raised about rubbish and bin chutes, that new bin shelters were introduced to encourage recycling and also residents were made aware of the changes and closure of the bin chutes. It stated as for the disposal of rubbish if there are any residents who are not able to take their rubbish to the bins, the landlord is happy to arrange a collection of their rubbish from their flat on the day of the bin collection.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about risk and safety to residents and stated that it was aware of the 2 incidents. It stated that all flats have smoke alarms fitted, so the alarm would be raised to call emergency services. It assured the resident that it had all the measures in place to prevent fires. It also stated it has written to all residents to refrain from throwing cigarette butts out of the balcony and explained that the building was with fire doors to prevent the spread of fire, and the council checked that all measures are in place on a regular basis.

On 25 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that it was approaching 7 weeks since submitting her complaint and she had not received any form of response in writing. She also stated that she forgot to mention other issues which included a query about the housing officer’s role and their responsibilities and also that she was having issues contacting the resident association.
On 9 February 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and explained that the resident had not received a response to her complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to contact the resident and provide a written response.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 3 March 2022. The following was included as part of its response:
1. It stated that its understanding of her complaint was that the resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 and 25 November 2021 and had not received a response in relation to the issues including heating, plumbing, the football pitch, drugs, rubbish/bin chutes, the risk and safety of residents and housing officer contact details.
2. The landlord explained that a letter was sent to the resident’s home address on 5 November 2021. It stated it couldn’t locate a response to her letter dated 25 November 2021 for which it apologised. It had looked at all the issues the resident had raised in both her letters. The landlord provided a similar response to its letter sent in November 2021 to the resident about her complaint.
3. It provided the resident with contact details for her housing officer and confirmed that they were the resident’s first point of contact for any tenancy/ estate related issues.
4. The landlord also mentioned that its contractor attended the property in September 2021 to install a TRV on the radiator in the living room to control the temperature, but the resident refused to have it installed as she preferred to have the TRV to be installed on all the radiators in the property. The landlord explained that since September 2021 there were no further contacts with the contractor and stated its housing officer, would contact the resident, so it could review the possibility of TRV’s being fitted to all of the radiators within her house.
5. It stated that as it could not locate a response to her letter dated 25 November 2021, it was partially upholding her complaint. In addition, it stated that its housing officer would contact her in due course to discuss and arrange any outstanding issues with her heating system.
On 11 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested adjustments to the way it communicated with her. She stated that she had asked the landlord on several occasions to remove her email address from the system and send her letters due to her mental health condition. The resident asked if all future contact could be via post or telephone call, so she could manage her mental health and anxiety. She also stated that she would be more alert to receive telephone calls after 2pm onwards.
On 1 June 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She explained that her email sent to the landlord on 19 April 2022 did make it clear that she was not happy with the response and had every intention of escalating the complaint to stage 2. She stated she had made it clear that she required support to follow up on simple tasks and had asked for that support.
On 13 July 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 27 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord chasing her stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 April 2023. The following was included as part of its response:
1. It explained that its housing officer at the time made several attempts to try and contact the resident to discuss her enquiries. The response referred to a meeting that took place between the resident and landlord on 4 August 2022.
2. The landlord stated during the meeting that it had concluded its investigation and that the outcome from its stage one response stood. In addition, the landlord sent a follow–up email on 8 September 2022 and explained that the stage one complaint dealt with the issues raised and therefore didn’t need to progress to a stage 2 complaint. The landlord apologised for not communicating this more officially.
3. It also explained that at the time, its housing officer had asked the repairs team to raise work orders to install 3 TRV’s on to the radiators in the property. The landlord informed the resident that the repairs team should be in contact with her the following week to arrange an appointment.
4. The landlord explained in the follow-up email sent to the resident, that it discussed her concerns regarding the football pitch and informed her to call the police if she witnessed any criminal activity taking place. It also stated that it had requested its enforcement team to increase patrols over weekends and evenings.
5. It also stated that it had contacted its caretaking team to enquire about the soiled nappies being dropped from one of the balconies and confirmed that it would take the appropriate action once the perpetrator had been identified.
6. The landlord also stated that any concerns the resident has regarding a neighbour who may require additional support should be reported to the landlord’s housing officer, who will then take the appropriate action to support the resident concerned.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was to meet with the relevant person who works for the landlord and can resolve the issues and improve the service going forward. In addition, she also stated that she would like the landlord to move her to another property.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour including reported noise nuisance and drug-related activity.

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy defines anti-social behaviour as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to a person.
The policy also states that when ASB is initially reported, the landlord’s housing or ASB officer should complete an ASB assessment form. However, it explains that there may be occasions when less formal notes are acceptable, usually when the case is minor in nature and is very quickly resolved without the need for a full interview. In such cases the informal notes must be transferred to the landlord’s system, and all follow–up actions and contact recorded against the case.
In addition, the ASB policy explains that the landlord may support a resident who has reported ASB through several methods, including:
1. Encouraging reports to the police who may visit, conduct extra patrols, identify those responsible, and take action to abate the behaviour.
2. Use of CCTV in line with RIPA requirements
3. Advising caretakers, concierge, sheltered scheme managers and enforcement officers where appropriate.
4. The use of noise recording equipment.
The landlord’s ASB policy also includes information and actions which should be taken in relation to nuisance caused by young people, which could include loitering, excessive noise, and drug use in communal areas. The policy explains that when youth nuisance is identified:
1. The landlord’s housing officer should report issues to the enforcement team and request regular patrols, for instance, where youths are congregating in a block.
2. The housing officer should also report issues to the estate police team where there is suspected drug use or drug dealing.
3. The housing officer should try to identify estate improvements which could stop youth nuisance, such as improved street lighting and/or new CCTV.
The resident raised concerns about ASB as part of her complaint submitted to the landlord in October 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported these ASB incidents prior to submitting her complaint to the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s ASB concerns in its complaint responses sent to her in November 2021, March 2022, and April 2023. The landlord explained that it has CCTV covering the football pitch and stated if she could provide times and dates of the nuisance, it could request the CCTV footage and view it and report the nuisance to the police. The landlord confirmed that it would also increase the number of patrols in the area by its enforcement team. The landlord’s response was reasonable and asking the resident for the dates and times of the nuisance, so it could review the CCTV footage was a necessary starting point for the landlord to conduct its investigations into the reported nuisance. In addition, the response was also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord explained to the resident that she should report any drug dealing or drug taking to the police. It also stated that it would inform the police of the resident’s most recent report and also its estate enforcement team who patrol the area in the evenings and night-time. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide this advice, as the police are responsible for investigating criminal behaviour such as drug use and the landlord is not best placed to lead such an investigation. The landlord would be expected to assist the police with any investigation, but it would need to ensure that any action it took did not interfere with the police’s investigation. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for a landlord to take enforcement action against tenants for drug related ASB until any related police investigation is concluded.
The Ombudsman recognises that it must have been difficult for the resident to deal with the reported noise nuisance and drug–related activity. However, the landlord responded appropriately and took reasonable steps to gather information to investigate and deal with the reported ASB incidents in line with its own ASB policy. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour including reported noise nuisance and drug–related activity.

Heating

The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and keeping in working order any installations it has provided for space heating and water heating. The tenancy handbook also states that a resident must notify the landlord as soon as possible about any damage or repair that is its responsibility and that is needed to the outside or inside of the property.
The landlord’s website includes information about its timescales for completing repairs. It states that it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours, an urgent repair within 5 days and a routine repair within 20 days.
The resident complained that she had issues with her heating, which included the radiators still letting off heat when the heating was turned off and having no control over the temperature of the radiators.
Prior to the resident submitting her complaint about the heating, the landlord’s contractor attended the property in September 2021 to replace 2 port valves on the radiators. The landlord also stated that it attempted to install a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV) on the radiator in the living room in September 2021. However, the resident declined this, as she preferred to have TRVs installed on all the radiators in the property. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident declining the installation of a TRV on the living room radiator would have been outside the landlord’s control.
The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response that its housing officer would contact the resident to review the possibility of installing TRVs on all the radiators in the property. The landlord failed to update the resident about the installation of TRV’s until August 2022, which was when its housing officer held a meeting with the resident about the concerns raised in her complaint and her escalation request. The landlord explained in a follow-up email following the meeting sent to her on 8 September 2022, that it had agreed to install the TRVs on all the radiators at the property and explained that the repairs team would contact her by 16 September 2022 to arrange an appointment.
The landlord’s repairs team failed to contact the resident by 16 September 2022 to arrange an appointment for the installation of the TRV’s and its contractor did not install the TRVs on the radiators at the property until 23 February 2022. Therefore, there was a considerable delay in the landlord carrying out these works, and it failed to comply with its own repair timescales. This delay would have been inconvenient for the resident.
It took the landlord a considerable amount of time after issuing it stage one response in March 2022 to install TRVs on all radiators in the resident’s home. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about heating. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to appropriately recognise the distress and inconvenience she may have experienced due to the landlord’s delay in completing the repair. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. Whilst there was a delay in the landlord completing the repairs, the impact of this is unlikely to be permanent as the repairs were eventually completed in February 2023.

Plumbing

The landlord’s tenancy handbook explains that the landlord will repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
The resident raised concerns about her sink regularly getting blocked and needing to use a plunger to unblock her sink.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident’s issue with a blocked sink had not previously been reported. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response that she should report any plumbing issues to its repairs team. This was a reasonable response. If the resident reports any problems with the sink, the landlord should respond in line with its repairs timescales. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling in the resident’s concerns about plumbing.

Rubbish and bin chutes.

The landlord’s tenancy handbook explains that residents must make sure that rubbish is regularly and properly disposed of in a safe and responsible manner. It states that residents must only dispose of rubbish in a refuse chute, communal bin, or designated rubbish area.
The resident stated that since the landlord closed the bin chutes, she had been unable to throw her rubbish away regularly as the closest bin was now a 10-minute walk away. Furthermore, she also stated that people had been throwing rubbish out of their windows and off their balconies and mentioned that she had come across used nappies in communal areas. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s complaint email was the first time this issue had been raised with the landlord.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the rubbish and bin chutes in its complaint responses sent in November 2021 and March 2022. It explained that the closure of the bin chutes was implemented following a residents’ meeting held in 2019 and the landlord stated that a consultation was carried out with the residents both prior to and during the installation, ensuring they were as involved as possible. It also explained that it was able to offer and arrange a rubbish collection from a resident’s property if they are vulnerable or experience difficulty disposing of their rubbish. The Ombudsman believes that the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. It also offered a suitable solution to her by offering to collect her rubbish if she required that service.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s concerns about rubbish including used nappies being thrown out of windows and from balconies. This was addressed in an email sent to her in September 2022, and also in its stage 2 complaint response sent to the resident in April 2023. The landlord explained that it had contacted its caretaking manager about the used nappies being dropped from one of the balconies. The landlord stated that it would investigate the issues with the caretaker and take the appropriate action once it had been able to locate the perpetrator. The response provided by the landlord was appropriate, as the landlord would not be able to carry out any required action to resolve the issue without identifying the perpetrator and gathering sufficient evidence. It is unclear whether the used nappies are still being thrown from the balcony or if the issue has now been resolved. Therefore, it would be useful for the landlord to provide an update to the resident if it has not already done so, on what its investigation concluded and whether it was able to identify the perpetrator and what action it took.
The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident about her concerns raised about the closure of the bin chutes and the disposing of her rubbish. In addition, the landlord provided an appropriate response in relation to the used nappies being thrown off a balcony. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish and bin chutes.

Risk and safety to residents and housing officer contact details.

The landlord’s vulnerable residents and safeguarding policy states that the landlord’s housing officer is responsible for assisting vulnerable tenants living in general-needs housing who need support to sustain and manage their tenancies, including liaising with support agencies and making appropriate referrals where necessary.
The resident stated in her complaint submission to the landlord that there were people living in her block of flats that caused a risk and safety to her and other residents. She explained that there had been incidents with the neighbour living above her on several occasions, including one incident where her neighbour left her cooker on and fell asleep. In addition, she also asked the landlord for the housing officer’s contact details and asked it to explain the role of the housing officer.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses sent in November 2021, March 2022, and April 2023. It explained that it was aware of the incidents with the resident’s neighbour and confirmed that all the flats had smoke alarms fitted and stated that it had all the measures in place to prevent fires. The landlord also explained to the resident that any concerns that she has regarding vulnerable residents should be reported to the landlord’s housing officer. It stated that the housing officer would then investigate as appropriate and take the right steps to support the vulnerable resident. In this instance, the landlord acted correctly in its response, and asking her to report any concerns about vulnerable residents to its housing officer was in line with its vulnerable residents and safeguarding policy. Due to confidentiality, the landlord would not be expected to share any further details with the resident about its response to the specific incident involving her neighbour.
The landlord responded appropriately to the query about the role of the housing officer. It explained that the housing officer was the resident’s first point of contact for any tenancy/ estate related issues. The landlord also stated that the housing officer would be able to signpost the resident or other residents to different supporting agencies and other relevant departments within the council. It also provided her with the housing officer’s contact details. Furthermore, the landlord sent a letter to all residents in October 2022 with updated contact details for its new housing officer and the rest of the housing team.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about risk and safety to residents and housing officer contact details.

The associated complaint including a requested reasonable adjustment.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that landlords should operate a 2 stage complaints process. A stage one response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage one complaint response within 15 working days and references the same timescales as the Code for a stage 2 response.
The landlord’s complaint policy states the relevant service area will carry out a review of the complaint at Stage 2 of the process and the Director will send a response detailing the findings and the outcome within 20 working days. The response will also provide details of how a resident can request a further review if they remain dissatisfied with how the complaint has been handled. In addition, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code also states that a landlord should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a resident’s complaint through all the stages of its complaint procedures. It explains that a landlord must have a clear or valid reason for refusing to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s vulnerable adults and safeguarding policy states that it will make reasonable adjustments where a disability has been disclosed by a resident. The policy also states that when communicating with residents it will have regard for known disabilities and should ensure that formats are appropriate and accessible. In addition, under the Equalities Act 2010, landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disability has been disclosed to it.
The resident first submitted a complaint to the landlord on 11 October 2021 and the landlord provided a response on 5 November 2021. The response was slightly late and not compliant with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 25 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that it was approaching 7 weeks and she had still not received a response to her complaint. She also provided some additional complaint issues for the landlord to consider. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident did not receive the landlord’s letter responding to her complaint, which was sent on 5 November 2021 by post. However, it is recognised that sometimes there may be issues with postal delivery, including letters going missing. Therefore, it would have been outside the landlord’s control that the resident did not receive the letter.
There was a considerable delay in the landlord providing a response to the resident’s email sent on 25 November 2021. Therefore, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 9 February 2022, asking it to contact the resident and provide her with a complaint response. Following this, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 3 March 2022 to the resident which considered the resident’s concerns raised in her October and November 2021 emails.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2022 and requested reasonable adjustments to the way it communicated with her. She asked if all future contact could be via post or telephone call, so she could manage her mental health and anxiety. She also stated that she was more alert to receive telephone calls after 2pm onwards.
On 1 June 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She explained that her email sent to the landlord on 19 April 2022 did make it clear that she was not happy with the response and had every intention of escalating the complaint to stage 2. She stated she had made it clear that she requires support to follow up on simple tasks and had asked for that support, but it was not provided. The resident asked the landlord to take the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response, so on 13 July 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and explained that the resident was still yet to receive a stage 2 response to her escalation request.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord and resident met to discuss and resolve her concerns raised as part of the complaint. The landlord stated that it explained in person to the resident that it had concluded its investigation and the stance from its stage one response stood. It sent a follow up email on 8 September 2022 to follow–up on the meeting and include any actions it had agreed to complete. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns and provided a follow-up email after the meeting. However, the landlord failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response in writing with referral rights to the Ombudsman. As a result, the resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 27 February 2023 for her stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord eventually provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 April 2023. The response was significantly late and would have delayed the resident progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
In addition, the stage 2 response was also initially sent by email to the resident, which was not in line with her reasonable adjustment request. The landlord also sent several other emails to the resident after she had emailed the landlord in March 2022 requesting reasonable adjustments. This was unreasonable and not in line with its vulnerable adults and safeguarding policy. This may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not taking her request for a reasonable adjustment seriously.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint, and it also failed to follow the reasonable adjustments she requested in her emails sent in March 2022. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord apologised in its complaint response for not responding to the resident’s email sent on 25 November 2021 and not providing a stage 2 complaint response sooner than it did. However, it failed to offer any compensation for the error and also did not recognise that it failed to carry out the resident’s reasonable adjustments request. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour including reported noise nuisance and drug related activity.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about plumbing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish and bin chutes.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about risk and safety to residents and housing officer contact details.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the associated complaint including a requested reasonable adjustment.

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £200 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about heating.
The landlord must pay the resident £200 for its handling of the associated complaint including a requested reasonable adjustment.
The landlord must comply with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss what support and reasonable adjustments it can provide her.
It is recommended that the landlord explains to the resident the application process and options available for moving property.