London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202010235)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010235

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 March 2022

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 reports of mould and damp.
2. Handling of reports of a noise nuisance.
3. Response to reports that the kitchen needed replacing.
4. Handling of the recent kitchen redesigns.
5. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in 1997. The property is a maisonette; the resident lives there with his son.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says that it will review all reported ASB incidents and will consider the risk in each case. Noise is considered ASB where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted
The landlord’s repair policy says that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates. Where age and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programmes of work.
The repair policy also says that the landlord is responsible for walls affected by penetrative and rising damp and also for condensation and mould (via the Healthy Homes Programme) as well as external walls, brickwork and rendering. The policy also says that it is responsible for all roofing and rainwater goods, including unblocking gutters and downpipes and roof tiles (when cracked or severely crumbled).
The landlord’s website explains that planned maintenance is the replacement or repair of certain building components, such as kitchens and bathrooms. It adds that the annual planned maintenance programme makes sure that properties most in need of works receive them first.
The Decent Homes Standard was introduced by the Government to bring all social and local authority housing up to an agreed decent standard. A decent home has to meet the following four criteria including having reasonably modern facilities and services. Dwellings which fail to meet this criterion are those which lack three or more criteria including a reasonably modern kitchen (defined as 20 years old or less).
A home lacking two or fewer of the above is still classed as decent, therefore it is not necessary to modernise kitchens and bathrooms if a home meets the remaining criteria.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one and within twenty working days at stage two.

Summary of events

On 29 November 2012 the landlord noted that the tenant had an old kitchen and needed an upgrade.
On 7 February 2013 the repairs log noted that the kitchen appeared to be over 25 years old and, though well looked after, it was coming to the end of its useful life. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident following a stock condition survey and said it would write to him if the property was to be included in its upcoming planned works.
On 10 October 2014 the landlord noted that the property was “in desperate need of a new kitchen. This has been requested before, and a couple of repairs have been completed but the kitchen is in need of renewal”.
The repair log noted in December 2015 that the kitchen drawer front had come off; an appointment was booked to carry out a repair that month.
The repair log noted on 11 October 2016 that a wooden kitchen drawer had fallen apart and that this matter was resolved on 16 December 2016.
The repair log noted on 11 July 2017 that the door had come off a kitchen cupboard and the hinge could not be tightened therefore it would not stay on; this matter was resolved on 19 July 2017.
The repair log noted on 8 February 2019 that fronts had fallen off a kitchen drawer and cupboard and that matter was resolved on 22 March 2019.
The repair log noted on 17 May 2019 that an operative had requested an inspection of the kitchen as “the condition of the entire kitchen is very bad” and needed renewal.
In November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that the replacement of his kitchen would take place between April 2020 and March 2021. It explained that this was a little later than it had hoped because it had been focusing on carrying out fire safety work to make sure its buildings were safe, in line with the very latest government advice. It added it would be happy to carry out minor repairs in the meantime and gave him a number to contact the repairs team.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord opened a noise complaint against the resident. A neighbour upstairs (the neighbour) reported the resident using a treadmill. The landlord spoke to the resident that day who acknowledged that his floorboards were “squeaky”. He subsequently reported this to the repairs team.
The landlord’s repair log evidences on 29 September 2020 that squeaky floorboards in the property were causing a noise disturbance to the neighbour. It noted that the resident would lift carpets prior to the visit.
The landlord’s repair log evidences on 30 September 2020 that the guttering above the front bay window located on the front first floor had a fault which was causing rainwater ingress to the lounge in the property.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord carried out a kitchen survey in connection with its renewal.
On 30 November 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the longstanding repairs. He listed its failure to carry out various repairs in the kitchen; failure to consult about the new kitchen installation; and failure to replace the kitchen earlier. He asked why he had had to upgrade the bathroom when he had installed a new basin and toilet several years ago.
The resident also raised specific questions about the new kitchen. He also said that faulty guttering was causing damp at the front of the house and asked if the noise complaint against him, which he said had been caused by squeaky floorboards, was still on his file.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said it was arranging for its damp contractor to investigate and remedy the damp in the living room. It said it would visit the property to fix the guttering on 23 December 2020. It apologised for the trouble this had caused.
On 11 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The main points in relation to the issues in this complaint were:
1. It had agreed to restart the consultation process for the kitchen redesign to ensure the resident’s requirements were discussed and agreed. A different designer would attend the property in the new year along with its contracts manager and project manager. The flooring would be discussed at that meeting.
1. It said that its direct maintenance team would look into the resident installing his own bathroom and the kitchen disrepair.
2. The landlord asked the resident to take up his query about the noise complaint with the property manager.
On 6 January 2021 the resident asked the landlord if it could repair the squeaky floorboards when the kitchen was renewed. He also asked if the height of the oven could be raised when the kitchen was renewed.
On 18 January 2021 the landlord’s damp contractor visited the property. Their report noted: broken roof tiles at front of house; pointing was loose or missing on external walls; and the front wall needed repointing at the top of the front wall next to the window. The contractor noted that the recently cleared blocked gutter, broken roof tiles and cracked pointing were the potential causes of damp in the property and noted mould on the front wall of the living room. The contractor noted it had taken action to remove the mould and that repairs were required to the pointing and roof tiles.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord told the resident that an oven could be installed at a higher level and it did not need an occupational therapist report.
The note of the visit by the landlord to the resident on 25 January notes, among other things: gas hob agreed; no [cooker] hood; oven underneath boiler – no: and extractor fan to remain where it was. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident with details of the new kitchen design.
Also on 25 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had received further complaints and recordings of loud noise from the property including talking, television and items being dragged across his flooring during late unsociable hours. The landlord said it would investigate this matter and, until an investigation, had been carried out, it was not possible to either substantiate or refute the details of the complaint. The landlord also explained that ASB such as noise was a breach of his tenancy and asked him to refrain from making such noise.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord sent papers to the resident about the kitchen redesign which it asked him to sign and return. Two days later he asked if he could change the colour of the vinyl flooring.
Also on 26 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord about the allegation of noise. He said that when the operative attended the property he had moved all the furniture in the living room in preparation but the operative did not want to proceed at that time saying he did not think the floorboards were particularly noisy. The operative said that the work would entail ripping up the hardboard under the kitchen lino and it was probably best to do that when the kitchen renewal took place. The resident said he was happy for this work on the floorboards to take place as long as the landlord gave an undertaking to replace the hardboard before or during the kitchen installation. He asked for details of the noise that had been alleged so he could respond to it.
In an internal email on 3 February 2021 the landlord noted that the resident had agreed the colour choices for the kitchen but had recently been in to change again the colour of the vinyl floor. It noted it was waiting for him to return the signed documents and to agree a convenient start date. On the same day it chased the resident for his signed confirmation for the kitchen design noting it needed this as soon as possible.
On the same day, following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his formal complaint.
On 11 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. Damp causing the bathroom tiles to fall off – a works order had been raised to investigate the mould in the living room; however, due to the pandemic restrictions, all non-emergency works had been placed on hold and he would be contacted as soon as an appointment can be scheduled.
1. The gutters had been replaced in December 2020 which it believed was possibly the initial cause of dampness within the property.
2. Renewal of Kitchen – its contactor had made two visits to the property in order for the resident to agree the kitchen design and colour choices as he was not happy with the initial design. He had agreed to a third meeting to make adjustments and agree the choices.
3. The landlord had also explained the options regarding the oven height as the resident was unhappy with the suggested location but it had explained the boiler could not be repositioned. It added the contractor had a start date for the kitchen renewal of 2 March 2021 but this could not be confirmed until the resident signed off the kitchen design. The landlord also said that it was “imperative” he signed and returned the documents as the current kitchen renewal programme was due to end in March 2021.
4. Noise nuisance – the neighbour had told the landlord that he had a wooden floor and was using a treadmill which was affecting his sleep. The neighbour requested if the resident could use his treadmill between 8.00am and 10.00pm so not to affect him. The resident had confirmed his floorboards were “squeaky” but the landlord was unable to carry out a repair at that time due to the pandemic. An appointment was made for 4 January 2021 but the resident cancelled this saying he wanted the work carried out at the same time as the kitchen renewal.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate his complaint.
On 18 February 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said that the damp issues had been investigated but the problem with the pointing remained. He listed the issues he remained unhappy with. In relation to this complaint, they were:
1. He did not believe there were any regulations stopping his hob being under the boiler.
2. The landlord had not investigated his complaint about longstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
3. Regarding the noise complaint, he did not have a treadmill and he had explained why he wanted to floorboard repairs carried out at the same time as the kitchen replacement.
4. The resident said he did not see how the kitchen installation could go ahead while his complaint was ongoing.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming his complaint would be escalated to stage two. It also said that the existing kitchen design remained as an open and viable option and should he wish to have it installed and completed prior to 31 March 2021 (when its contract with the kitchen contractor ended), he should confirm in writing by 26 February 2021 as there was a three-week order period and a ten-day installation period. The landlord acknowledge that this offer conflicted with his complaint, but said it wanted give to him the opportunity of the kitchen installation.
On 24 February 2021 the kitchen contractor told the landlord that clearance for boilers must be adhered to in accordance with the manufacturers guidance. They said they had looked at different ones online and most were between 150mm and 200mm under the boiler; an eye-level oven housing would not fit under a boiler as it was over two metres high. It explained that a boiler must be accessible for maintenance and safety checks as well as the clearance for ventilation and for its proper functioning; putting an oven housing under the boiler was not something that a gas engineer or kitchen designer would contemplate. The contractor said that an oven housing could be fitted in the kitchen, just not in the place requested.
On 26 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that he did not feel the current design for the kitchen met his needs/requirements and therefore that the installation should wait until there was a resolution to his complaint. He noted that the issues were the oven being placed under the boiler, the installation of the hob extractor chimney and leaving the walls blank so he could have his own tiles installed. The resident added he hoped this would not impact on whether or not the installation happened in the future.
On 24 March 2021 the neighbour again reported noise from the resident’s property including the noise from a treadmill.
The repair log notes on 26 March 2021 that roof repairs should be carried out to the front elevation; slates and flashing were missing. It noted that pointing should be checked around the dormer window.
In an internal email regarding preparation of the stage two response, the landlord noted that it “was unable to comment on the lack of repairs or why the property was not part of a former programme”.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. Kitchen renewal: at a meeting on 25 January 2021 agreement was reached with the resident about all aspects of the kitchen design. Updated designs to take account the raised height of the oven were emailed to the resident on 25 and 26 January 2021. It was aware that residents might prefer to make improvements to their homes by installing items of their own choice but these would need to be installed later after the final sign off of the kitchen installation. It said it was unable to approve installation of components which did not form part of the kitchen plans and which were not supplied by the contractor. It added this was not open to further review or appeal.
2. It would not agree to locate the oven near the gas boiler. It explained that it was not considered safe or good practice to install cookers or ovens near another gas appliance, especially one that generates heat. It said discussions took place on the 25 January 2021 and solutions about alternate locations for the oven were suggested although the resident had declined the proposals.
3. The landlord explained that it operated a reactive maintenance service which relied on residents reporting repairs to it. It noted the last repair on its system relating to the kitchen was in 2019; it could locate no reports about repairs to the bathroom in the last several years. In relation to the extractor flue, the landlord said that the resident had agreed the extractor would remain where it was during the visit on 25 January 2021. It noted he was arranging installation of a cooker hood himself and it said it could arrange a new socket outlet where the extractor was sited, if that would be of use.
4. The landlord said it could not uphold the resident’s suggestion that it had reneged on agreements or failed him. It said it had responded to his enquiries, attended meetings at his home and assisted him. It said it was unable to offer alternatives to the cooker location and, if he wanted the kitchen replacement to proceed. He would need to sign and accept the most recent kitchen plan. It added that no further alterations to the design would be made and failure to sign and return the designs or further delay in receipt of his acceptance would result in renewal not taking place.
5. Damp and mould: on 19 January 2021 an inspector noted an issue with the pointing which could be affecting internal moisture levels. It acknowledged the resident’s view that that the contractor spraying the living room wall had been unsuccessful and noted that the contractor had cleaned the mould and applied a shield which was designed to prevent it returning. The landlord noted that this will not always remove the stain left by the mould and said that decorating the area himself should resolve this. The landlord noted that the area where the mould formed was in the living room on the front wall and this was caused by a blockage to the guttering which was recently resolved by another contractor. The landlord added that, if the mould persisted, to contact it.
6. The landlord noted further repair issues: the front wall had cracked pointing next to the window which could lead to water ingress and there were damaged roof tiles. It said that an inspector had surveyed the external structure on 26 March 2021 and a roofing contractor had been appointed to assess and repair the external structure.
7. Noise nuisance: on 28 September 2020 the landlord received a report of noise against the resident as the sounds were disturbing the neighbours’ sleep. It said that the noise sounded like a treadmill but it had not verified that and the description used was based only on reports it had received. On 21October 2020 the resident cancelled a visit for the landlord to repair and re-fix loose floorboards in the property. On 25 January 2021 it wrote to the resident again saying it had received further noise complaints from his neighbour. It explained that, as a responsible landlord, it must investigate such reports using its processes and policies. It added that, if repairs could be completed which would mitigate the noise, that would benefit the neighbour. The landlord said it required the resident to provide reasonable access for repairs and it would take tenancy enforcement action should he not provide access. It said it would arrange another appointment for the repairs to the floorboards.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When he approached the Ombudsman, the resident said that there had been a continuing problem with damp and mould to the front of the house for several years which had affected the bathroom, the living room and more recently his son’s bedroom. He added the walls by the bay window constantly produce yellowish-brown and white stains which he had to treat and repaint. He said the landlord did not treat the mould which had spread from behind the tiles adjacent to the window throughout the bathroom. The resident said that contractors had said that different workman who had attended since last autumn all agreed that the main cause was loose roof tiles and flashing compounded by poor pointing. He said the roof tiles were repositioned but the mould and damp had returned. He said the landlord had not actioned the poor pointing.
The resident said he could also hear the neighbours turning their light switches on and off. He added that he did not have a treadmill. The resident said that repairs had been outstanding to the kitchen since 2015. Regarding the new kitchen, the resident said that there were two sticking points: the extractor fan and the position of the oven. He said he had been told after the first kitchen design appointment that he could have a larger hob and an extractor fan with a flue extractor and he had therefore bought these items himself. However, the installation contractors had since changed their minds saying that he could pay to have the extractor fan relocated after the kitchen had been fitted. He said that he would not have bought the cooker hood if he had known the contractor would change their mind.
The resident gave details of his medical conditions including arthritis in his feet, knees, hips & lower back/hip area as well as hands/wrists and peripheral neuropathy which means he had pain when bending and he said he regularly dropped things including saucepans and small fiddly items; he said he also lost his footing/balance frequently. He said the suggested layout would mean that he would be more vulnerable to more accidents with the cooker due to a lack of workspace. He said putting the oven under the boiler would give him that extra workspace.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of mould and damp

The repair log evidences earlier reports of mould in the bathroom of the property in 2014. As this matter was not brought to the Ombudsman at that time, this report has focussed on events from 2020 onwards.
The landlord’s immediate response to the problem reported with the guttering in September 2020, was reasonable and the matter was resolved in December 2020. Following the resident’s complaint in November 2020, the landlord asked a contractor to investigate the damp and mould which it did in January and March 2021. However, while action was taken to reposition the roof tiles, no action was taken to resolve the cracked and missing pointing to the external walls. This matter is still unresolved almost one year later. The landlord’s response was not appropriate; it has failed to deal with these repairs within a reasonable timeframe including taking into account the Government restrictions imposed on it during the pandemic. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to take action on this repair to try to resolve the damp and mould within the property.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Living in a property with damp and mould for over eighteen months has caused evident distress and inconvenience to the resident and his son. It also caused frustration because, while the cause of the problem was identified by contractors, no follow-up repairs were completed. Financial compensation of £250 is appropriate here for the impact the landlord’s failure has had on the resident for the period from January 2021. An order has been made, below.

The landlord’s response to reports that the kitchen needed replacing

The evidence shows that the landlord was aware the kitchen required an upgrade as early as 2012 and this was brought to its attention again in 2013, 2014 and 2019 and some repairs were carried out to the kitchen from 2015 to 2019. An operative considered the kitchen to be at least 25 years old in 2013 which meant it was already five years beyond what was considered to be reasonably modern (paragraph 7).
The landlord has acknowledged internally that it was unable to explain why the kitchen was not part of a former programme of works. In its correspondence with the resident, the landlord explained that the delay was due to fire safety work. However, that does not explain why the property was not included in a programme of works prior to 2017 given that it was deemed that the property “was in desperate need of a new kitchen” in 2014.
The landlord did not act reasonably here by failing to include the kitchen for renewal in a programme of works within a reasonable timeframe; it is now almost ten years since it was first suggested that the kitchen should be upgraded.
This delay in replacing the kitchen has evidently caused the resident great distress, inconvenience and frustration. This was caused by having to use a kitchen over a long period that, by the operative’s account, “very bad”. It also meant that the resident was caused frustration by having to report several repairs to try to resolve the problems with the kitchen’s drawers and cupboards. The extensive time period that this issue has been ongoing means that financial compensation is appropriate for the period from the end of 2014 (it is reasonable to assume that the kitchen should have been included in planned works that took place by the end of 2014 approximately, given that the kitchen was identified for renewal at the end of 2012).
An order has been made for financial compensation of £500 to reflect the impact on the resident of this distress, inconvenience and frustration.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a noise nuisance

Under its ASB policy, the landlord has a responsibility to investigate reports of noise (paragraph 3). While the resident disputes that he has a treadmill, the landlord came to believe that a problem with the floorboards was contributing to the noise experienced by the neighbours. The neighbour reported that they believed the resident was using a treadmill and that was the information it passed on to the resident; the landlord was not saying that the noise had been caused by a treadmill.
The landlord’s response to the neighbour’s reports of noise was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. Given the kitchen renewal had not taken place, it was reasonable for the landlord to try to take action in the meantime to resolve the squeaky floorboards so that this noise does not continue for the neighbours. There was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the neighbour’s reports of noise.

Handling of the recent kitchen redesigns

The landlord acted reasonably in restarting the kitchen design process when the resident said he felt he had not been properly consulted. It agreed to raise the height of the oven without an occupational therapist’s report.
A meeting with the resident, the landlord and the kitchen contractor took place on 25 January 2021. The note of that meeting dealt with the two sticking points raised by the resident: the extractor fan and the site of the oven; the landlord said the extractor fan would remain in the same place and that the oven could not go beneath the boiler.
It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors as they should be able to provide knowledgeable advice in their area of expertise. Therefore, while the resident disputes that the oven cannot be sited under the boiler, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the contractor’s view that putting the oven under the boiler is not appropriate.
It is not evident that the landlord has been made aware that the cooker hood purchased by the resident is incompatible with the position of the extractor fan. This issue was raised with the Ombudsman following the final complaint response. A recommendation has been made, below, for the landlord to consider this point raised by the resident and also to give him an update on the kitchen renewal given that the current kitchen renewal programme ended in March 2021.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate as it failed to follow its formal complaints procedure. When the resident first complained in November 2020, the landlord responded within ten working days but did not explain how the complaint could be escalated. Furthermore, that response said that the direct maintenance team would look into the kitchen disrepair; this Service has seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord should have dealt with the resident’s first formal complaint in line with its complaint procedure. Further, while the stage one response was issued within the timescales set out in the complaint procedure, the stage two response was delayed by nine working days. The landlord therefore failed to progress the complaint and failed to try to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity. It also missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
The delays in dealing with the complaint in line with its formal procedure evidently caused the resident inconvenience and frustration and meant he had to approach the Ombudsman to progress matters. An order has been made for financial redress to reflect the impact of this on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to reports of mould and damp.
2. Response to reports that the kitchen needed replacing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of reports of a noise nuisance.
2. Handling of the recent kitchen redesigns.

Reasons

Following inspection surveys of the property in early 2021, repairs were carried out to guttering and roof tiles; however, the recommended work to external walls in order to stop the damp is still outstanding.
It was not appropriate that a kitchen, flagged in desperate need of renewal in 2014, was not included in a renewal programme before 2019. While the landlord carried out some repairs, it meant that the resident had a kitchen which according to an inspection was in a “very bad” condition.
The landlord’s handling of reports of a noise nuisance by the resident was reasonable. While the resident disputes the cause of the noise, it is appropriate for the landlord to access the property to undertake repairs that may resolve this matter.
The landlord’s handling of the kitchen redesign was reasonable in having a further consultation to discuss this when the resident felt he had not been involved and by agreeing to raise the oven. While the resident does not agree with the landlord’s decision about the site of the oven, it is reasonable for it to rely on the advice from its contractor.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It did not deal with the initial complaint from the resident in line with its complaint procedure and there was a delay in issuing the stage two response.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of such action to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report relating to the damp and mould, delayed kitchen replacement and complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £800 made up of:
  1. The sum of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in including the kitchen in its planned works programme.
  2. The sum of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to remedy the damp and mould within the property within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The sum of £50 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Carry out the recommended repairs from the surveys in January and March 2021 in full within four weeks of this report.
4. Make good any damage caused by the damp and mould internally, including to decorations.
5. Follow up with the resident four weeks after the repairs are completed to ensure this matter is fully resolved.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Contact the resident about when his kitchen renewal will now take place.
2. Before this renewal, consult with the resident about the cooker hood he has purchased and the location of the extractor fan.