From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Newcastle City Council (202427543)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427543

Newcastle City Council

31 July 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about her move, repairs at the new property, and her request for a single point of contact.

Background

  1. The resident previously lived at another of the landlord’s properties. The landlord offered to move the resident in May 2023 due to considerable repairs needed at the previous property. She accepted and the new tenancy began on 19 June 2023. The current property is an end of terrace house. The resident has mobility difficulties and is neurodiverse.
  2. The landlord had arranged a removals company to move all of the resident’s belongings to the new property on 23 August 2023. This did not happen and there were delays in moving her belongings and reconnecting the gas as the cooker had not arrived. There were also reported issues with the wiring of the boiler once the gas was uncapped and the resident paid approximately £567 to stay in hotels between 25 and 28 August 2023.
  3. The resident initially raised a complaint on 29 August 2023. In summary:

a.     She was unhappy with the errors made during the move and felt traumatised by the experience. She spent money on hotels and had injured herself by needing to move heavy furniture. There was no gas at the new property and the removal company had damaged items, including her mattress, dishwasher, and washing machine. Other items were still at the previous property, and she did not want the same removals company to move the remaining belongings due to the upsetting events.

b.     She was still waiting for a response regarding damage to belongings due to a leak at the previous property and an ongoing charge for a furniture pack. When staying at a hotel, she noticed a large hole in the roof of her former property and said she did not have full use of the affected room.

c.     She had also asked for a single point of contact (SPOC) under the Equality Act. This had not happened and multiple contacts and a lack of coordination impacted her. She requested a face-to-face meeting.

  1. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 September 2023, and the resident raised further concerns on 5 and 6 September 2023. In summary, she said:

a.    She received 19 letters from the landlord on 1 day for repair jobs with dates in August 2023 which had an emotional impact. She outlined the impact of the move and outstanding repairs on her mental and physical health.

b.     It had not raised work for the repairs needed following a leak in the new property and she heard nothing further despite multiple requests for updates regarding compensation for loss of belongings, payment for money she spent on hotels (which it had agreed to pay), or damage to her flooring caused by the removal company.

c.     She had a week of no gas with multiple call outs but no notice. She needed to take time off work, but the landlord continued to make errors, and she had no faith in its ability to put things right.

d.     She wanted it to compensate her for hotels, belongings and loss of a room at the former property since March 2023, and the emotional and physical harm caused. She also asked it to refund an unwanted furniture package.

e.     She provided a list of outstanding repairs which included work to her doors, floor coverings to the landing, stairs, and the bedroom, a wash basin in the toilet, boxing to lounge pipework after a leak, her shower head, the bath plug, tiling, and garden gates. She also said it did not book in garden works so a friend helped her.

  1. The landlord met with the removal company in September 2023 to discuss the errors made during the resident’s move, and their handling of other removals. On 8 September 2023, it also sought to urgently refund the resident £566.40 for her hotel costs.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023, the landlord:

a.     Listed the repairs she had raised concerns about, and the actions it had taken to address these. It said that it coordinated work at the new property swiftly, it had now mostly resolved these and it listed ongoing actions.

b.     Said it would not laminate or paint the stairs due to risks of slips, but it had offered to place carpet. It found it was not practical to install a wash basin in the downstairs toilet. It advised it had not found fault with the shower head and damage to the laminate could form part of the claim to the removals company.

c.     Said its garden clearance team usually visited within 7 days of a new tenancy, and they had visited 4 times. It found it had repaired a recent leak from a pipe under the bath but did not complete works to this area during the void period so did not identify the leak sooner.

d.     Noted her concern that the washing machine was left disconnected which caused a leak. It said it had assumed that she would not use the washing machine as she reported that it was faulty and leaking.

e.     In relation to the number of letters she received, it said this was an IT system issue which it rectified. It confirmed its process for sending letters was automated. It advised the staff member who would be her SPOC. It appreciated that there were multiple staff involved with the move and repairs, which included other SPOC officers who had since moved roles within the business.

f.     In relation to her concerns about it sharing her personal information with the removal company, it said it responded to this point on 22 September 2023 and provided its privacy notice.

g.     Said it was unable to look at the historic repairs at her previous property and noted that within its previous responses to a complaint in March 2023, it found it needed to complete inspections and work when the property was empty. It was not able to offer compensation for loss of belongings due to the leak at the old property, loss of a room from April 2023 to September 2023, or the emotional or physical harm the situation caused. It advised she could pursue this via its insurance team. It said a furniture service was investigating her concerns about an unwanted furniture package charge separately.

h.     Recognised that she said the move and subsequent repairs made her feel traumatised, upset, depressed, stressed, and impacted her physical health. It apologised that she experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience. It upheld the complaint and offered £300 as a goodwill gesture.

i.     Said it would continue to liaise with the removal company to progress her claim for damage to her kitchen goods and also offered to provide a washing machine on a temporary basis at no extra cost, but it would not be able to remove or store the current machine.

j.     Listed action it had taken to support her that went over and above its obligations. This included directly allocating the new property, arranging removals, providing flooring, fully decorating the new property, providing a decoration pack, fitting a bespoke kitchen and fence, manufacturing metal gates, extending the tenancy at the previous address at her request, and reimbursing her quickly for additional costs associated with a hotel stay.

  1. On 13 October 2023, the resident:

a.     Said she was unhappy with repairs in the new property, including that it had not completed the landing flooring or painted the stairs. She said she could fit a non-slip tread when the work was complete. She could not afford to complete this herself and said she injured herself coming down the stairs to get to the only accessible toilet. The lack of flooring often meant she could not get to the toilet in time due to her medical conditions.

b.     Added that the landlord had invited the removal company to her property twice that week unannounced. She told it that she felt frightened and intimidated by them and wanted no further contact. This further exacerbated her lack of trust and caused significant upset. She alleged that they told her that it was too short notice to let her know about the visits which she did not find acceptable. She said she needed to repeat her request for them to leave multiple times.

c.     Later added that the reason she refused carpet on the stairs was due to worries about future leaks damaging them. She did not accept its reasoning regarding the health and safety of her request.

  1. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the furniture pack at her previous property in a separate stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 October 2023, the landlord said:

a.     That it did not paint stairs or provide floor coverings during void works. Its flooring contractor said they would not cover stairs with cushioned vinyl due to health and safety risks. Painting the stairs also posed a health and safety risk. It previously offered to fit a carpet as a gesture of goodwill and the offer remained in place. Alternatively, it would offer £100 toward the cost of fitting a floor covering. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as it was not able to complete work that sat outside of its health and safety parameters.

b.     It apologised for any distress caused following the removal company visiting unannounced. It recognised the error and spoke to the removals company to ensure this did not happen again. It confirmed a staff member would act as her SPOC and liaise with the removal company on her behalf. It upheld this element and apologised again.

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation. She noted several further repair problems since the complaint and shared how her experience impacted her trust in the landlord. She added that the situation had negatively impacted her health and wellbeing and raised concern that the landlord had not maintained a SPOC due to staff changes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has shared that the situation negatively impacted her health. While we do not doubt her comments, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are better suited to be decided by a court via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord regarding a furniture pack she had been paying for which it addressed at stage 1 of its complaints process on 17 October 2023. As this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process at stage 2, this will not form part of our investigation.
  3. The resident has referenced several further repair matters following the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2023, and issues related to her benefits, and single point of contact. We are only able to consider matters raised as part of the complaint and which the landlord had the opportunity to respond to at the time. Our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of, and response to, the complaint made between August and October 2023.
  4. The resident raised concerns about damage to her personal belongings at her previous property and during the move. She also requested compensation for loss of a room at her previous property. We note that the landlord provided information about how she could pursue these elements as part of an insurance claim. It is not our role to determine whether the landlord was liable for the damage caused to the resident’s items or order it to pay damages. These matters are usually best suited to a home contents or liability insurance claim. In addition, this investigation does not look at the landlord’s handling of repairs at the previous property and we cannot comment on whether there was a loss of room.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including internal doors and floors, but not floor coverings or decorations. It is also responsible for installations for heating and sanitation, including central heating installations and pipes. The resident is responsible for internal decoration, including floor coverings, and keeping the garden tidy. The resident also agrees to allow access to the property. The landlord would usually give 24 hours notice except in an emergency.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that it would attend emergency repairs and make the property safe within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 working days. Residents are responsible for minor repairs such as fitting bath plugs, shower heads, and door furniture.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about her move, repairs at the new property, and her request for a single point of contact

  1. It is evident that the events around the move, and the repairs needed at the new property, caused distress to the resident between 23 August 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 26 October 2023. The landlord has recognised that the move and repairs caused avoidable distress and offered £400 compensation. This included a contribution toward the cost of the floor covering on the stairs and hallway. The landlord also reimbursed the resident for the cost of staying in hotels during the move.
  2. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered in view of her experience. We have considered elements of the resident’s complaint below to determine 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.

Records

  1. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide records related to the resident’s complaint. We have been able to reach a determination with the information to hand, but the records are not comprehensive. Its repair records do not include all information about when the repairs listed in the complaint took place, and we do not have a clear understanding of the number of visits to the resident’s property, or its communication with her regarding these. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for a landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that it followed its own policies and procedures.

The resident’s move

  1. The landlord was not obliged to assist the resident with moving costs, or arrange to do this itself. However, it was reasonable for it to arrange this as a gesture of goodwill. It has not disputed that the circumstances involving the removal company contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced.
  2. The planned removal on 23 August 2023 did not take place due to the removal company’s truck breaking down. This was outside of the landlord’s control but understandably led to a delay. The landlord has shared that it arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel that night, as it had already disconnected her kitchen appliances. We have not seen evidence to confirm this, but this would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The removal company attended the following day, but the resident reported that they only agreed to take essential items. Other items, but not all, were moved on 25 August 2023. This was not the initial plan and was likely to cause distress and inconvenience.
  3. It is evident that the landlord was unhappy with the performance of the removal contractors and took steps to address concerns by meeting with them in September 2023 to discuss the resident’s move, and several other removals around the same time. This was appropriate to address any failings and requirements moving forward for both parties. It demonstrates that the landlord was seeking to prevent similar failings in the future. While the landlord recognised that the situation impacted the resident within its responses, it could have done more to address what happened as part of its complaint response. This was a shortcoming.
  4. There is also reference to a separate claim made to the removal company for damage to the resident’s belongings. As set out above, we cannot determine liability for damage to belongings, but it was reasonable for the landlord to support the resident in making this claim.

Gas and leak related repairs in the property

  1. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident was of the understanding that it could not uncap the gas at the new property unless her cooker was in place so this could be connected at the same time. A gas engineer attended twice on 23 and 24 August 2023, but she had turned them away as the removal company had not delivered her cooker. We have not seen clear evidence to confirm she was told this but appreciate this caused some delay.
  2. The landlord spoke to the resident on 24 August 2023 to confirm that it could still uncap the gas and reattend to connect the cooker if it had not arrived. It then arranged to uncap the gas and wire in the new boiler that day which was reasonable. It is unclear what happened following this. However, it raised further work orders on 24 and 25 August 2023 to check the boiler due to a lack of hot water or heating, and then to check the wiring on the boiler, indicating that there were ongoing problems with the installation.
  3. We have very little evidence to document when the resident experienced a leak in the new property, the extent of the leak, or when the landlord resolved this. She has indicated that the landlord resolved the leak at the time of her communication on 5 September 2023, indicating that the leak occurred at some stage between 25 August 2023 and 5 September 2023.
  4. We appreciate that the resident felt the need to stay at a hotel over the bank holiday weekend. It is unclear if this was due to issues with the removals, a lack of gas at the property, or leaks. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by agreeing to reimburse the resident for her costs. It is unclear whether she told the landlord that she would be seeking alternative accommodation, but we appreciate that it may have been able to offer temporary accommodation at a lower cost had it arranged this itself. It was not obliged to reimburse the resident’s hotel costs on this basis. It was reasonable, and resolution focused, for it to do so.
  5. The resident reported that during the week of 28 August 2023, she did not have gas, there were multiple call outs without notice, boxed pipes in the lounge were leaking and the flooring in her bedroom was lifted due to leaking pipework. It is of concern that none of this information is reflected in the landlord’s repair records. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed what happened more fully in its complaint responses. However, it nonetheless recognised the overall impact on the resident within its later offer of compensation.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023, the landlord advised that it had repaired a recent leak that was due to a faulty pipe connection under the bath. It explained that it did not complete work to this area during the void period so it did not identify any issues sooner. It is unclear if this was related to the leak from the pipework system when it installed the boiler.
  7. We understand that some repair issues only become apparent once a resident moves in and begins using the property. While the leaks were likely to cause distress, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord had the opportunity to identify leaks related to the boiler before the resident moved in. It would have needed an active gas supply to install the new boiler and complete necessary tests. It may, however, have had the opportunity to check for leaks from the bath connection during the void process.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicates that it had completed repairs to resolve a recent leak to the bath, boxing around the lounge pipes and repairs to some areas of flooring by 27 September 2023. This was appropriately within its responsive repair timescales of 28 days.

The resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings and loss of room

  1. Within her communication, the resident raised concerns about belongings damaged by the removals company, damage to her belongings at her previous property, and the loss of a room at the previous property. As set out above, we cannot determine liability for damage to belongings and concerns related to the previous property do not form part of this investigation.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide details on how she could progress an insurance claim within its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. We note that it also said it would discuss the claim made directly with the removals company on her behalf which was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord has shared that the resident did not pursue the claims at the time. Given the length of time that has now passed, it is unclear whether the resident would still be able to make a claim. We have recommended that the landlord confirms this and supports her in making the claim if possible.

Other repairs

  1. In her complaint communication on 5 and 6 September 2023, the resident listed outstanding repairs in the property.
  2. In relation to her concern that there was no basin in the toilet, the landlord explained that it was not practical to install a sink. We understand that the resident had a separate toilet and bathroom. The landlord would not be expected to install a sink if there was not one there before, and where there may not have been enough room to do so. We have not seen that the resident did not have access to suitable hand washing facilities. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating this and confirming its position.
  3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about doors, the landlord acted reasonably within its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023 by recognising that this was outstanding, and saying it would arrange a joiner to visit. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have told her the date of the visit within its response. However, she did not continue to pursue this concern at stage 2, and it is assumed the landlord resolved this satisfactorily at the time.
  4. The resident also raised concerns that the sink in her bathroom did not have a splashback. However, the landlord said the bathroom was tiled. We do not have sufficient evidence to confirm this; nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its position, and we have not seen evidence to show that this was an ongoing concern. It was also reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to replace the bath plug which the resident said was missing and ask her to report any issues with the showerhead given it had not found a fault when it visited.
  5. It is unclear when the landlord initially agreed to manufacture metal gates for the resident’s garden. It acted reasonably within its response on 27 September 2023 by explaining that these were being manufactured and it would arrange an installation when they arrived. We note that the landlord agreed to manufacture these at the resident’s request and any delay in installing these were unlikely to have significantly impacted her use of the property.
  6. We note that the resident said that the landlord had not arranged to clear the garden, and she needed to ask a friend to help her with this. The landlord explained that it usually arranged garden clearance work within 7 days of a tenancy starting, and its team had visited 4 times prior to 27 September 2023. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether there was a delay in arranging the garden clearance, or whether the landlord did not have the opportunity to arrange this before the resident completed some work herself. The resident did not dispute the landlord’s comments that its team had attended 4 times or pursue this further which indicates this matter was resolved at the time.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023, the landlord recognised the resident’s concern that it did not connect her washing machine, which caused a leak. We note that she initially told it on 29 August 2023 that her dishwasher and washing machine were damaged by the removal company to the point they were “unusable”, and this formed part of her claim to the removal company.
  8. The landlord arranged an appointment to connect the dishwasher and washing machine on 18 September 2023 and raised another repair on 20 September 2023 due to the resident’s report that the washing machine was leaking. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for this leak, and it was reasonable for it to explain that it assumed she would not use the washing machine as she had told it that it was faulty.

The resident’s request for floor covering

  1. In line with the landlord’s repairs handbook, and general practice, residents are generally responsible for fitting floor coverings. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to install floor coverings to the property as a gesture of goodwill, but it was not strictly obliged to do so.
  2. The landlord also offered to carpet the resident’s landing and stairs, but she declined this as she was concerned that they would be damaged by future leaks. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns, especially given her experience with leaks at her previous property and the leak shortly after moving in, it was still reasonable for the landlord to offer to carpet the stairs and landing.
  3. She asked that the landlord paint the stairs or lay a vinyl instead of carpet. The landlord acted reasonably by discussing this with its contractors and explaining that it would not do this due to the health and safety risks of doing so. While it is possible to fit vinyl or paint stairs rather than place carpet, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the implications of doing so when responding to the complaint, especially given that it would potentially be liable for any future injuries if it did so and this was left in an unsafe condition.
  4. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer £100 toward the cost of the resident arranging the floor coverings to the stairs and landing herself. This was unlikely to cover the full cost; however, it was a resolution-focused approach given that it was not obliged to complete or fund this work.

Communication and request for a single point of contact (SPOC)

  1. In her complaint communication on 28 August 2023, the resident raised concern that she had requested a single point of contact (SPOC) under the Equality Act but this had not happened. She also said she was unhappy with the number of contacts she had, and the lack of coordination. She later added that she had received 19 letters in 1 day.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that the number of letters sent to the resident was due to an IT issue so it sent these automatically by mistake. We appreciate the impact the resident said this had on her wellbeing. However, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord had control over the automated system issue. It was unlikely to have been able to avoid this and it was reasonable for it to explain what happened.
  3. It is unclear when the resident first asked for a SPOC or when the landlord became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, we understand that she previously had a SPOC. We have also seen evidence that a member of staff communicated with her leading up to the move.
  4. The landlord acted reasonably in response to the complaint by arranging a new SPOC. It also recognised that there had been multiple staff involved in the move, including other SPOC colleagues who had since moved to other areas of the business. It would have been appropriate in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities and neurodiversities to ensure that there was a staff member to oversee the move and communicate with her.
  5. This may not have prevented the problems related to the removal company or the repairs at the new property but may have gone some way to ensure that the resident felt supported. It is understandable that some visits to the property may have been without notice due to the emergency nature of repairs related to a lack of gas supply and uncontainable leaks. However, the landlord should ensure it is able to demonstrate that it has communicated with a resident regarding required repairs, and it has provided limited evidence to show it did so.
  6. The landlord has acted reasonably by recognising that the number of concerns and the moving process impacted the resident’s wellbeing, and there was avoidable distress and inconvenience. We recognise that some of the distress and inconvenience she experienced may have been avoided had a SPOC been in place from the outset. We have recommended that the landlord considers developing a contingency plan to ensure vulnerable residents remain supported when members of staff change position within the business.
  7. In her escalation request on 13 October 2023, the resident said that the removal company visited her property despite her saying she did not want further contact with them. She added that the member of staff said there was not enough time to inform her in advance. We do not have sufficient evidence to explain why the removals company needed to visit the property after the initial move. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint response by recognising the impact this had and apologising for this. It also set out that it had spoken to the company to ensure this did not happen again which demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes.

The response to the complaint

  1. Following the resident’s complaint on 29 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. This was outside of its policy timescales at stage 1. It acted reasonably by informing the resident of the delay in advance. It could have done more to recognise the delay within its responses but this minor delay was unlikely to have a significant impact. Following her request to escalate the complaint on 13 October 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 26 October 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe.

Summary

  1. In summary, we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. It is evident that the circumstances around the move and repairs had a negative impact on the resident between 23 August and 26 October 2023 when the landlord provided its final complaint response.
  2. The landlord offered £300 for the distress and inconvenience experienced alongside £100 toward the cost of laying floor coverings on the stairs and landing. It also reimbursed the resident for her hotel costs during this period.
  3. Our remedies guidance states that compensation figures between £100 and £600 can be proportionate where there has been maladministration due to failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. Overall, the landlord’s offers are proportionate in recognition of the failings we identified, and the impact on the resident over this 2-month period.
  4. In view of the resident’s concerns that the landlord has not maintained the SPOC arrangement, we have recommended that it contacts her to confirm which staff member will act as her SPOC, and considers contingency measures to ensure that this is maintained if staff move to other areas of the business.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its response to her complaint about her move, repairs at the new property, and her request for a single point of contact which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:

a.     Ensures it has paid £400 compensation and reimbursed the resident’s hotel costs as previously offered. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid.

b.     Writes to the resident to confirm the staff member acting as her current single point of contact and seeks to contact her to understand if there are any adjustments it needs to make in relation to how it communicates with her going forward.

c.     Considers a contingency plan for any single point of contact arrangements with vulnerable residents to ensure that when staff move to different areas of the business, a new member of staff is appointed in a timely manner.

d.     Contacts the resident to confirm if she is still able to make a claim for damaged belongings and support her in doing so, if possible.

e.     Considers creating a void checklist or document for staff if it has not already done so. It should ensure that it checks for any visible leaks from sinks, baths, or toilets.

  1. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks.