London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202122722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122722

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about information it shared with a third party.
2. Response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
3. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about information it shared with a third party.
Paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to information it shared with a third party is a matter which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This aspect of the complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The other aspects of the complaint are considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat. He holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s tenancy commenced in 1998. The landlord attached the following information to the resident’s file:
1. The resident had declared a mental health condition.
2. ‘Restricted contact’ was in place and a single point of contact nominated.
3. All communication should be sent to the landlord’s single point of contact, who will send on to the resident.
4. That contact should be made by email, ‘including appointments.’
The landlord’s Conditions of Tenancy Document. The landlord’s obligations:
1. Section 1 (a) says the trust agrees “not to interfere with or disturb the tenant in the peaceful occupation of the premises, provided the conditions of tenancy are observed by the tenant.”
The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy was effective from 5 December 2018:
1. Section 4.2 of the policy says any contact with a resident could provide an opportunity to identify their needs. When the landlord provides a service, residents should be asked if they have any particular needs, or vulnerabilities, that it should take into account.
2. Section 4.4 of policy says it will keep a record of relevant details on its housing management system.
Under the Equality Act 2010 organisations have to make changes in their approach or provision to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else. The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy refers to the Act. It recognises that the Act requires organisations to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the way things are done eg changing a practice. This is to ensure individual needs are met.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. It will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient. A payment can be made to recognise the impact that service loss or failure had on the resident. This could include failure to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines. Another example being failure to respond to or process a complaint within its target times.

Summary of events

Although the precise date was unclear, it was evident that the resident requested a reasonable adjustment from the landlord in 2018. He requested all communication in writing. After significant ill health and necessary mental health support, the request was made to help him manage his condition and support his coping strategies.
From 20 August 2018 to 8 October 2018 the landlord’s gas contractor attempted to arrange an appointment with the resident to complete a gas safety check. The contractor recorded sending a letter for an appointment. An engineer attended the appointment and access was not successful. The resident considered the engineer’s attendance to be contrary to his reasonable adjustment request. The resident explained that he had not received a letter. The contractor informed the landlord and agreed to hand deliver a letter for a new appointment on 12 October 2018. At this stage the landlord issued a letter that incorrectly suggested the resident had denied access.
On or around the 24 September 2018 the resident approached a solicitor to write a letter to the landlord reiterating his reasonable adjustment request. The resident felt that his request prior to this date was being “ignored” by the landlord and its contractors. The resident paid the solicitor £150.
On 26 October 2018 the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s MP regarding the resident’s reasonable adjustment request. The landlord responded on 7 November 2018 and advised the MP that the resident’s request had been acknowledged and processes were in place to ensure he received communication in writing.
On 31 October 2018 the Regulator for Social Housing responded to a complaint made to it by the resident. The complaint was made following the gas engineer’s attempted visit and the subsequent letter that said the resident had “denied access.” The regulator wrote that it considered “that the landlord had not handled the matter well. It considered the landlord instigating it’s no access process to have been unnecessary.”
On 1 November 2018 the landlord’s gas contractor advised the landlord that it had written an apology to the resident. He had been unhappy that it had contacted him on several occasions to book a gas safety check. The contractor attempted to seek confirmation from the resident that the arranged appointment was convenient as it had received no acknowledgement. The contractor sent the resident an apology letter for calling him and included £50 worth of vouchers for “any confusion caused.” The contractor advised the landlord that the resident had returned the vouchers.
On or around the 3 December 2018 the resident emailed the landlord as he considered that the landlord and its contractors were not providing the requested reasonable adjustment and continuing to ‘cold call’ him. The landlord responded and confirmed that it had a suite of policies to support vulnerable residents in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.
On 10 January 2019 the landlord raised a job to replace a water damaged boiler at the property. Its repair records showed that it advised its contractor to “follow instructions for arrangements.” The contractor emailed the resident, attended, and later emailed to thank the resident for allowing access that day. A further appointment was arranged for the next day to replace the damaged boiler. The resident requested that the contractor arrive before 8.30am as he had a prior appointment. The contractor attended as requested.
During January 2019 there is evidence the landlord restricted how the resident communicated with it. A single point of contact was put in place to manage future communication with the resident to ensure appropriate communication boundaries were in place.
On 8 February 2019 the resident informed the landlord that the new boiler had leaked. The heating contractor attended the property the same day.
On 8 May 2019 the landlord reminded its heating contractor that the resident’s preferred method of contact was in writing to ensure that the next gas safety check was arranged in line with the resident’s requests. The contractor recorded that the landlord must also attend the appointment. The request had been made by the resident following the previous disputed access issue and boiler leak.
On 30 May 2019 the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s MP. The resident had approached the MP following the response from the Social Housing Regulator on 31 October 2018. The resident remained unhappy about his reasonable adjustment request. The landlord responded to the MP. It explained that it had discussed the regulator’s letter with the resident previously and assured the resident that it was aware of his requests for communication in writing. The landlord considered that it had already addressed this matter.
On 18 September 2019 the resident sent the landlord a lengthy email in which he expressed his wish for the landlord to acknowledge and adhere to the requested reasonable adjustment. The resident said that “it had been 241 days since his request.”
On 11 October 2019 the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It was aware of his expectations that it contacts him in writing. It apologised if this had not been adhered to. The landlord said to ensure that the reasonable adjustment was adhered to, an alert had been added to the resident’s tenancy file. It said that advanced notification in writing was required.
2. It advised the resident that it might not be able to accommodate a written confirmation in the event of an emergency. It advised it would do all it could to contact him in advance and provide as much notice as possible.
3. It had responded to enquiries from his MP as requested. It had assured the MP that a reasonable adjustment was in place.
4. It said that the reasonable adjustments put in place were explained in its previous letters. It asked the resident to advise if there were additional adjustments required to its services and said, “If you feel that we need to make further adjustments to accommodate you on medical grounds, please do let me know.”
5. It advised the resident that it had previously offered to reimburse the £150 that the resident paid for a solicitor’s letter. It advised that the resident had not confirmed acceptance of this.
On 14 October 2019 the resident informed the landlord that an electrical contractor had attended the property unannounced. The landlord apologised to the resident and explained that “very specific instructions had been given” to the contractor.
On 23 November 2019 to address further communication from the resident, the landlord wrote to the resident to reassure him and reiterate that it was aware of his reasonable adjustment request. It asked the resident to tell it if there were other adjustments that it could make.
On 16 January 2020 the landlord’s records indicate that it continued to restrict the resident’s contact via a single point of contact.
Between January and June 2020 extensive communication continued between the resident and the landlord. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reasonable adjustment request. The landlord introduced a new single point of contact to the resident who would coordinate all communication. A prearranged visit to the property during May 2020 identified repair requirements. The landlord worked to coordinate the necessary work with contractors and consulted with the resident.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord’s single point of contact attempted an urgent call to arrange a decant of the resident from the property while it carried out kitchen repairs. The landlord required a response to secure the decant property and confirm dates with the resident. The resident was unhappy with the “cold call.” The landlord emailed to apologise and explained the urgency. The resident accepted the apology in his email response, but explained this was another example of the landlord failing to comply with his reasonable adjustment request.
During communications in 2021 the resident reiterated his desire for a reasonable adjustment and considered that his request was not being responded to. The landlord continued to try and reassure the resident that it was aware of his reasonable adjustment request and would ensure his single point of contact communicated this need to contractors. The landlord continued to restrict the residents contact via the single point of contact.
On 8 March 2022 further attempts were made to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding his historical request for a reasonable adjustment. In response to a comment made by the resident about pests, it also provided the contact details of its pest control contractor.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged that its actions in 2018 to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession in order to secure access to meet its gas servicing requirements “could have been handled differently.” It acknowledged that it needed to take into consideration the resident’s particular circumstances.
On 10 March 2022 the resident made a new complaint. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had asked him to contact the pest control contractor directly. The resident explained that this was a further breach of his reasonable adjustment request. The landlord should have given him written notice of an appointment.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord responded to resident’s complaint as a stage 1 response. It said:
1. It apologised that it had asked the resident to contact a contractor directly. It accepted that this appointment should have been arranged for him and confirmation sent to him. It acknowledged that this was contrary to the reasonable adjustment arrangement.
2. It acknowledged that its gas contractor had also not acted in line with the reasonable adjustment and that an appointment should have been sent in writing as agreed. It explained it had addressed this with the contractor.
3. It assured him that his request for a reasonable adjustment had been implemented.
4. It explained that a record on its database showed that any contact with the resident should be by email. Additionally that contact should be made via the designated single point of contact.
5. It upheld his complaint.
6. However, it failed to explain how it would resolve the matter and a compensation offer was omitted at this stage.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It identified that it had failed to include an offer of compensation in its stage 1 response dated 16 March 2022. It made an offer of £90. This was made up as follows:
1. £40 for any distress caused.
2. £30 for any inconvenience caused.
3. £20 for its to delay in providing a response to the resident’s complaint.

The resident responded the same day to request that the complaint was escalated. This was acknowledged by the landlord. It advised that it was experiencing a backlog of complaints at stage 2 and that his case would be allocated to a customer relations officer in due course.

On 7 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In its letter the landlord said:
1. That the resident had complained on 10 March 2022.
  1. The letter incorrectly categorised the resident’s complaint as a roof repair.
2. That it was sorry that the resident remained dissatisfied.
3. It acknowledged that it was clear that the level of service received was “not reflective of the high standards that the landlord strived to provide.”
4. It said the resident’s enquiry could have been managed more effectively. For which it “sincerely apologised.”
5. It increased its offer of compensation from £90 to £140 for its failure to adhere to the reasonable adjustment arrangements and that it had asked him to contact a pest controller directly. The compensation was made up of:
  1. £40 for any distress caused.
  2. £50 for the time and effort involved communicating with the landlord.
  3. £30 for any inconvenience caused.
  4. £20 for its to delay in providing a response to the resident’s complaint.
6. It advised that this stage 2 letter concluded its complaint process.
Following a response from the resident the landlord identified that it had made an error within its complaint response dated 7 April 2022. Internal communication showed the landlord amended the letter to reflect that it was not a roof repair complaint. It corrected it to show that the complaint was in relation to the landlord advising the resident to contact a pest controller directly and therefore not adhering to the reasonable adjustment request.
On 11 April 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he was not satisfied with its final response and returned its compensation cheque by recorded delivery. He advised that he would be speaking to the Housing Ombudsman. He did not consider that the landlord had addressed the issue that it was failing to provide the requested reasonable adjustment.
On the same day the landlord provided the resident with its corrected stage 2 in response. Its compensation remained at £140.
On 6 June 2022 the resident’s complaint was duly made to the Ombudsman.
On 22 July 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he was upset that a contractor had called him to confirm an appointment. The resident advised that a written appointment in advance was sufficient. He expressed concern that missed calls would be used as him “denying access.” He asked that the landlord share his reasonable adjustment request with its contractor(s).
On 27 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for the contractor’s call. It explained that this should not have happened.
On 29 July 2022 the resident informed the landlord that another contractor had arrived unannounced. The landlord apologised and advised it would hold a meeting with colleagues on 1 August 2022 to identify what else could be done to prevent this from happening.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had made changes to its systems and repair ordering. The landlord advised that a clear message was displayed that all enquiries were to go through the nominated single point of contact.
On 15 August 2022 the resident informed the landlord that contractors arrived unannounced at his property at 8am. He explained that he had received no advance warning by the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident and explained that it would discuss the reasonable adjustments for the repairs to “go ahead.” The resident considered that this discussion should have happened before the unannounced visit. He considered that the “punitively imposed” single point of contact was not working and the landlord continued to fail to comply with his reasonable adjustment request.
On 16 September 2022 the resident emailed the single point of contact. He advised that he had been waiting for updates regarding repairs to his property that he had not received. He also advised that he continued to be affected by contractors cold calling him. During September the resident sent further communications raising the same concerns to senior members of the landlord’s staff.
On 22 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that a [pest] contractor had attended his property unannounced. The contractor explained to the resident that the landlord had not informed it of the resident’s reasonable adjustment request.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord emailed to arrange a meeting with the resident. It wished to introduce its head of Housing Specialism to the resident. The landlords records state that this team were a new support team made up of mental health and safeguarding practitioners. It hoped these specialists would be able to “advise on a variety of issues to reach more effective solutions.” It explained that the division was created to ensure more complex housing management areas received a dedicated resource.
On 22 December 2022 a representative from the Social Housing Action Campaign (SHAC) emailed the landlord. It expressed disappointment that the landlord had not resolved the resident’s reasonable adjustment request. It asked the landlord to explain why this had “been so problematic to put this provision in place.”
On 6 January 2023 the resident met with the landlord. In its email of 17 January 2023 it summarised the meeting and agreed actions that it would take. It advised:
1. It found the meeting “incredibly productive and inciteful.”
2. It was keen to learn more from the SHAC in its “quest to bring about meaningful, positive change and improvement for its resident’s. In particular those with protected characteristics…”
3. It agreed to contact SHAC to “discuss and ensure reasonable adjustments are handled in the most effective way.” It agreed to complete this action by 17 February 2023.
4. It agreed to appoint an alternative gas contractor to manage the resident’s property and boiler needs. It advised it would ask this contractor to ensure that the reasonable adjustment requirements were set out clearly and adhered to. As soon as the contractor confirmed this arrangement, the landlord agreed to share this with the resident.
5. It agreed to review its reasonable adjustment policy and ensure communication was shared across its organisation. It advised that this would be completed by the end of March 2023.
6. It agreed to immediately remove the single point of contact restrictions and unblock access to its online services.
7. It discussed the need for a “compensation award to accurately and fairly reflect the 4 years that this matter had been unresolved and to reflect the impact of its failure to adhere to the reasonable adjustment the resident requested…” The compensation offered was £5,960. This was calculated as follows:
  1. Distress. At £60 per month, for 4 years (£60 x 48 = £2880)
  2. Inconvenience. At £60 per month, for 4 years (£60 x 48 = £2880)
  3. Time and effort. At £200.
In May 2023 the resident informed this Service that contrary to the promises made during the January 2023 meeting with the landlord, he had not received the compensation offered and neither had he received confirmation that it had completed the actions to which it had committed. He considered his complaint unresolved.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to a reasonable adjustment request made by the resident

It was evident that the resident made a reasonable adjustment request in 2018. He asked that the landlord communicate with him in writing so that he could manage his health condition and prepare for appointments in advance. This was a reasonable request to ensure that his individual needs and a protected characteristic were met under the Equality Act 2010.
Although the landlord responded at length to multiple issues and at times was inundated with communication from the resident, there was no evidence that the landlord wrote a separate letter to acknowledge and explain that it understood his request and how it would manage and monitor it. This may have offered the resident the reassurance he sought or provided an opportunity for constructive communication as early as 2018 and ensured his needs were met.
Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord has a duty to adopt a reasonable alternative method of providing its services to the resident. This was clearly stated by the resident as communication in writing. Although the landlord provided reassurance to the resident and responded to his MP’s enquiries that his request had been heard, it failed to implement and adhere to it on numerous occasions over a considerable period of time. It was not reasonable that the resident continued to be affected by unannounced visits which caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience for more than 4 years.
Furthermore, the resident sought support from multiple external bodies and paid £150 to a solicitor for a letter requesting the landlord to adhere to a reasonable adjustment. It was not reasonable that the resident considered this action necessary to secure a legal right under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s contractors were acting on behalf of the landlord at all times. Therefore it was reasonable for the resident to expect the contractors to adhere to the reasonable adjustment request. When this process failed it was right that the landlord acknowledged these failings and apologised. However, the resident reported multiple incidents of unannounced contact from contractors even after alerts were added to the landlord’s systems. This further demonstrated that there were problems with the landlord’s processes and this caused the resident to incur distress and inconvenience being disturbed unannounced in the property.
The landlord’s decision to implement a single point of contact and restrict access to online services was also of concern. Although the landlord was attempting to manage the manner, content and quality of communication, it did not provide any evidence to show how after reaching this decision it intended to monitor the arrangement. The resident often referred to this arrangement as “punitive and imposed.” It was evidently very challenging for him and caused considerable distress. When imposing restrictions a resident should be informed of the reason and duration of the arrangement. The resident should be provided with an opportunity to appeal the decision and given support and the opportunity to re-establish an amicable relationship. This was not seen until the landlord’s head of specialism became involved in late 2022. Therefore, the resident endured these restrictions for several years. This was unreasonable.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord during its consideration of the complaint within its internal complaints procedure (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that:
1. It had failed to act on the resident’s reasonable adjustment request by directing him to its pest controller.
2. It offered compensation of £120 for any distress, time and effort and inconvenience caused.
However, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the impact of the failing on the resident. It failed to recognise that he had experienced ongoing failures with his reasonable adjustment request for around 4 years and this occurrence was further evidence that his request was still not met. A considerable amount of time was expended by the resident communicating with the landlord to reiterate his requested reasonable adjustment. Although it was impossible to accurately determine the precise number of emails, there were many and often sizable. As such the landlord failed to recognise the extent of the distress that the resident had experienced trying to resolve the matter.
It is noted that in January 2023, 9 months after the landlord’s final response to the complaint it revisited the question of compensation and increased its offer to £5,960. Whilst this is welcome it is evidence of the landlord’s failings in adequately assessing the level of redress required within its internal complaints process.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above the compensation offered to the resident by the landlord at the end of its internal complaints procedure was not proportionate to the impact of its failings on the resident and the landlord failed to learn from the outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not make redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

The resident made a complaint on 10 March 2022. The landlord directed him to its pest controller to organise an appointment himself. It was reasonable that the resident was dissatisfied with this response and considered it contradictory to his reasonable adjustment request. The landlord had acknowledged the resident’s request for written appointments from 2018 and had advised of alerts added to its system to ensure that this happened. Therefore this was an error that could have been avoided.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 16 March 2022. Six days after the complaint was made. This was appropriate as it was within its 10 working day response timescales of its complaint handling policy. Although it initially omitted to make an offer of compensation after upholding the resident’s complaint, it amended its letter and reissued on the 18 March 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested the landlord escalate his complaint the same day.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and issued its stage 2 response on 7 April 2022 where it increased its compensation offer. The landlord’s complaint handling included administrative errors and categorised the resident’s complaint as a roof repair. The landlord corrected the letter and reissued its stage 2 response on 11 April 2022. This was appropriate and within the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaint handling policy.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure and apologised. It was therefore appropriate that it offered compensation for its complaint handling. However the administrative errors within its responses were evidently the cause of further communication from the resident and prompted the need for the landlord to reissue its responses. It was reasonable that the landlord corrected and reissued its responses in a timely manner and within its response timescales.
Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the resident’s concerns. It also provides an opportunity to put things right at the earliest opportunity. However, its errors did not display that it had learned from past outcomes and evidently required further time and effort by the resident to resolve matters. Given the history of the resident’s concerns, this would have also caused further distress and inconvenience. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its offer of £20 for its complaint handling failure was not considered reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about information it shared with a third party.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to a reasonable adjustment request made by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an affective reasonable adjustment to its services as requested by the resident from 2018 onwards. This undermined the relationship with the resident. Furthermore, this failure accumulated over a significant period of time which had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s specific complaint within timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. There were however administrative errors that the resident responded to. This required the landlord to reissue both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident a total of £6,040 in compensation. The compensation comprises:
1. £5,960 compensation already offered in January 2023, if not already paid.
2. A further £80 for any time and effort, distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered within 4 weeks to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and to provide this Service with a summary of the review. The management review should include:
1. What went wrong and the steps it will be taking to ensure that the failures are not repeated.
2. A review of its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in responding to requests for reasonable adjustments reported by residents do not occur in the future. Including the review of its reasonable adjustment policy that it agreed to carry out by March 2023.
3. A review of its discussion and learning following contact with the Social Housing Action Campaign that it agreed to approach by 17 February 2023.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with the update it agreed to about the actions it is taking to review its reasonable adjustment policy.
The landlord must update this Service about compliance with the above orders.