Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202324857)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324857

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

8 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her mobility scooter had been stolen and her request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building repairs, cleaning and service charge costs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about changes in housing officers and lack of communication.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy, which commenced in August 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has fibromyalgia and depression.
The resident told the landlord on 25 January 2023 that there was an infestation of mice in her home and the communal areas had not been cleaned. She also said the communal doors and the CCTV were faulty and unauthorised people were living in the building. The resident noted she was unable to contact her housing officer.
The resident told the landlord on 13 May 2023 that her mobility scooter had been stolen and asked for a copy of the CCTV recording. She said she had previously made a complaint and was awaiting the landlord’s response. She told the landlord on 26 May 2023 that she wanted compensating for her stolen mobility scooter and to be reimbursed her service charges given it failed to clean the building and ensure it was secure.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023 and said:
1. It was aware the car park gate was faulty and it was waiting for the delivery of parts.
2. It was considering the resident’s request to be compensated for the loss of her mobility scooter and her request for a copy of the CCTV footage.
3. It would arrange a walkabout with the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation on 14 June 2023 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced. The resident told the landlord on 18 June 2023 she wanted to move for health and safety reasons. She escalated her complaint on 28 June 2023 and told the landlord on 7 July 2023 that her housing officer did not respond to her concerns. She asked for this to be added to her complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £1890 compensation on 18 August 2023 to cover the cost of replacing the mobility scooter, even though it said it had no obligation to do so. It noted that it would not cover the cost identified by the resident for any ancillary items connected to the mobility scooter. The landlord also acknowledged it needed to be more proactive in resolving issues identified with the management of the building and to significantly improve its communication with the resident.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 September 2023 and said:
1. It would arrange to meet the resident to discuss her request for rehousing. This would be completed during week commencing 2 October 2023.
2. It would ensure the issues with the pest infestation were resolved.
3. The communal doors and car park gate had been repaired. Whilst it could not prevent residents from breaking the doors, it would check the CCTV and send a letter to all residents.
4. It would resolve the issues with the cleaning of the block.
5. It was unable to let the resident view the CCTV footage for data protection reasons. It was, however, able to share information with the police and would have facilitated this if asked to do so. The police had closed the case and the footage was no longer available given the length of time that had passed.
6. Changes in staff over the previous 18 months had been problematic and its communication with the resident had been poor. A new housing officer had been appointed and this should resolve the issue with communication. The housing officer would contact the resident and agree a plan of action to help rebuild trust.
7. It would offer the resident £350 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Post complaint events.

The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £1890 compensation to replace her mobility scooter on 22 September 2023. She did not accept the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation made in its final complaint response.
The landlord told the resident on 9 October 2023 that the compensation was inclusive of the identified service failings and it would not compensate her for the service charges she had paid. It also confirmed the car park gate was still broken and it was creating an action plan to address the outstanding issues identified by the resident.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation on 15 January 2024 for ongoing service failures. This was added to her rent account.
The landlord advised all of the residents living on the estate on 29 May 2024 that it was reducing its management fee by 15% for the 2022 -2023 financial year. It said this was because of the unsatisfactory service that had been provided to the residents. It also noted it had arranged for a survey of the CCTV cameras.
The resident told this Service that the landlord put down rodent bait in March 2024 and there had been no evidence of an infestation since. She also noted the car park gate and communal doors were repaired in March 2025, although the timing of the automatic door closure system meant she was ‘’hit’’ by them when entering the building. The resident was unclear if the CCTV had been upgraded and noted there were still problems with the communal cleaning.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is noted that the resident said she had reported issues with the building for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in January 2023, up to September 2023, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will carry out repairs in accordance with section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985 and its repairs policy. It also says the landlord will insure the building against damage by fire and other risks. The resident is responsible for ensuring she has sufficient household insurance to cover her personal possessions.
The resident pays a weekly service charge to cover the cost of managing, maintaining, and repairing communal parts of the building and estate. This includes the provision of CCTV, building cleaning, pest control, general maintenance and door entry systems.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will provide a prompt repairs service and ensure its properties are kept in a good state of repair so that residents can live in a safe and secure environment. The repairs policy confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and repairs in communal areas. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs include repairs which pose an immediate risk to the health, safety and security of a resident or property. This includes external doors which cannot be secured. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours.
2. Standard repairs are completed within 20 working days of being reported.
3. Replacements and improvement work timescales are communicated to residents.
The landlord’s adaptations policy sets out its approach to the provision of minor and major adaptations to its homes. The landlord is not responsible for providing mobility scooters. Residents who require mobile aids are told to contact the local authority for an assessment.
The landlord’s cleaning specification says it will ensure all internal communal areas are free of litter and bulky refuse is disposed of frequently. It also says it will ensure floors in communal areas are swept and walls, handrails, skirting and door furniture are kept clean. No timescales or frequency of works are included in the specification for cleaning communal areas.
The ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ guidance sets out a general duty on landlords to ensure their properties are habitable and safe to live in. This includes ensuring properties are free from hazards (such as infestations) that could potentially lead to infections. The landlord is responsible for eradicating pests in blocks of flats where they enter the building via a communal area or building defect.
The landlord’s pest control leaflet says it will stop infestations in communal areas if it fails to take reasonable care to maintain the building. Mice are included in the landlord’s definition of pests.
The landlord’s pest control procedure says it will investigate reports of pest infestations to establish if it is a re-occurring problem and to determine the potential cause. It arranges for a surveyor to complete an inspection if it is identified the pest infestation is a result of a structural problem with the building. No timescales are included in the procedure for carrying out inspections or treatment works. Follow-up visits are arranged after 3 months to ensure the problem has been resolved.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will offer compensation if it fails to follow a policy or where there has been an unreasonable delay. Awards up to £250 are paid where there has been a serious failure which has caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her mobility scooter had been stolen and her request for compensation.

The resident told the landlord on 13 May 2023 that her mobility scooter had been stolen from the car park. She said this was because the landlord had failed to ensure the building was secure. She asked the landlord for a copy of the CCTV footage and noted she was pursuing the matter through the courts. She told the landlord on 16 May 2023 that her request for the CCTV footage was ‘‘time sensitive’ ’given she was vulnerable and needed a mobility scooter.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request at this stage. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so and to confirm whether it would provide the requested information. The landlord’s failure to do this meant the resident had to chase up the matter on 26 May 2023. She said she was entitled to the CCTV footage and wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost for the mobility scooter and the associated equipment.
The landlord told the resident on 31 May 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was looking into her request for a copy of the CCTV footage and compensation for the replacement of her mobility scooter. No timescales were provided by the landlord for doing this. This meant the resident was unclear when she could expect to receive a response.
The landlord told the resident on 14 June 2023 that she would need to contact the local authority regarding her request for a new mobility scooter. This was consistent with the landlord’s adaptations policy and its actions were reasonable in the circumstances given it was not responsible for the provision of the mobility scooter. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have also advised the resident to make a claim against her home contents insurance.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It has not been possible to establish what proportion of the compensation was attributed to the resident’s complaint about the mobility scooter. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled her to reach a conclusion as to whether she believed the offer made was fair.
The resident told the landlord on 18 June 2023 that she was not responsible for replacing the mobility scooter given it was stolen from the landlord’s building and it had insurance. She also noted the landlord was withholding the CCTV footage.
The landlord responded on 18 July 2023 and said it would not compensate the resident for the loss of her mobility scooter. It said this was because the issue was a criminal matter and she should contact the police. It noted its building insurance only covered the structure and repairs to the building. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with details of its public liability insurance. The landlord said it was unable to provide the CCTV footage for data protection reasons. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord offered the resident £1890 compensation on 18 August 2023 to cover the cost of replacing the mobility scooter. It said it did this even though it had no obligation to do so. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It also said it would not pay for the loss of the ancillary items associated with the mobility scooter. This was because the items were personal effects which had no impact on the resident’s mobility and should have been stored in her home. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord confirmed on 1 September 2023 in its final complaint response that it could not share a copy of the CCTV footage with the resident for data protection reasons. It said it could provide information to the police if asked to do so, but they had closed the case and the footage was no longer available due to the length of time that had elapsed. The landlord confirmed it would check the CCTV footage in the future, if such an incident occurred again. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint.
In summary, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and there were delays in advising her that it was not responsible for the loss of the mobility scooter. There were also delays in advising the resident that it could not provide her with a copy of the CCTV footage. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The landlord did, however, offer the resident an apology and agreed to cover the cost of replacing the mobility scooter. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that her mobility scooter had been stolen and her request for compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building repairs, cleaning and service charge costs.

The resident has indicated that she is unhappy with the service charges levied by the landlord. Although this Service is not able to consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase ( this falls within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber), we have investigated whether the landlord carried out its duties and responsibilities linked to the service charges in accordance with its policies and procedures
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 25 January 2023 that there were multiple issues with the building and she should not have to pay a service charge. She said the main communal door and car park door were faulty and unauthorised people were accessing the building. She also said the CCTV did not work and the communal areas were not cleaned. This included noting the bin area was a mess and the landlord failed to clean up human excrement and urine in the internal communal areas.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or raised any repairs at this point. This meant it did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. Neither did it arrange for the building to be inspected to ensure it met the standards set out in its cleaning specification. This was a failure. A job was raised on 16 February 2023 to repair the communal door, although it is unclear from the housing records if and when the landlord attended. It also raised a repair on 13 May 2023 to fix the car park gate but again it is unclear from the housing records what work was carried out and when. This was a failure.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were confusing and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord confirmed on 31 May 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was aware there was an issue with the car parking gate and the parts had been ordered. No timescales were provided for completing the work. This was not consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to complete a walkabout with the resident to discuss any concerns she had, it did not address her concerns about the service charge or provide an update regarding the cleaning of the building and the other outstanding repairs. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord.
The landlord offered the resident an apology on 18 August 2023 for failing to maintain high standards in the management of the building. It said it needed to be more proactive in resolving issues and would provide an estate wide update once the date for completing the outstanding repairs had been confirmed. This helped to rebuild trust and demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident told the landlord on 28 August 2023 that the communal entrance door had still not been repaired and she had not received an update regarding the other outstanding repairs. She said unauthorised people were entering the building and she feared for her safety.
The landlord confirmed on 1 September 2023 in its final complaint response that the communal doors and car park gate had been repaired. It also said it would resolve the issues regarding the cleaning and the outstanding repairs.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In this case, the landlord did not set out the steps it would take to resolve the issues identified by the resident or provide any timescales for completing the work. This meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the service charge and its offer of £350 compensation was not broken down. This meant the resident was unable to determine if the offer was fair.
The landlord’s offer to reduce its management fee for the 2022-2023 financial year made on 29 May 2024, cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it did not take action until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The offer was, however, proportionate and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation.
In summary, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s concerns in a timely manner and its communication was poor. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about building repairs, cleaning and service charge costs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

The resident told the landlord on 25 January 2023 that there were mice droppings in her home. She said she had previously reported the matter to the landlord, but no action had been taken to address the infestation.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s home or the exterior of the building to establish if there were any access points which allowed rodents to enter the building. This was not consistent with the landlord’s pest control policy. This Service expects landlords to investigate and establish the source of any reported pest infestation. Landlords are also expected to monitor the situation and provide residents with a timescale for the completion of any required works, where appropriate. The landlord’s failure to do this meant the resident was not clear on what actions, if any were being taken to address her concerns.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the pest infestation in its stage 1 complaint response issued on 31 May 2023. This was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident told the landlord on 7 July 2023 that no action had been taken with regards to her reports of a pest infestation. Again, the landlord failed to take steps to fully investigate if there were any entry points which allowed rodents to access the property, thus the infestation continued. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated. This meant she was not clear on what was happening.
The resident told the landlord in August 2023 that she had been reporting issues for over a year and many other residents had problems with rodents. She noted mice were entering the building through the smoke vents and via the balconies. The landlord confirmed on 18 August 2023 that it would arrange for the entire block and the resident’s property to be treated. It said pest control would be in touch within the next week. Whilst the landlord’s actions demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident, there is no evidence a visit took place. This led to the resident having to chase up the landlord on 28 August 2023.
The landlord told the resident on 1 September 2023 in its final complaint response that it would resolve the issues with the pest infestation. No details were included in the response setting out what steps would be taken and no timescales were included. This was a failure. The landlord’s offer of £350 compensation was not broken down. This meant the resident was unable to determine if the offer was fair.
In summary, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and its communication with the resident was poor. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on at least 3 occasions that there were mice in the property. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

The resident told the landlord on 18 June 2023 that she wanted to move for health and safety reasons. She said she was housebound following the loss of her mobility scooter and the situation was affecting her mental health.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request at this point. This led to her having to chase the matter up on 18 July 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond on the same day. It sent her a rehousing application form and said it would assess her rehousing banding once she returned the form. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
It is unclear from the housing records if and when the resident completed the rehousing application form. Whilst the landlord told the resident on 18 August 2023 that her housing officer would discuss her rehousing request with her, there is no evidence any discussion took place. This was a failure.
The landlord confirmed on 1 September 2023 in its final complaint response that a member of staff would arrange to meet the resident to discuss her request to move. It said it would do this by week commencing 2 October 2023. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident, it did not offer an explanation as to why no contact had been made following the agreement that was made on 18 August 2023. This was a further failure.
In summary, the landlord did not act on the resident’s request to move in a timely manner and its communication was poor. Whilst it sent the resident a rehousing application form, there is no evidence it followed the matter up with her despite agreeing to do so. Whilst the landlord offered £350 compensation, this was not broken down and the resident was unable to determine if the offer was fair.
The situation caused the resident inconvenience. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move, for which it is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about changes in housing officers and lack of communication.

It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it failed to respond to many of the concerns she raised in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged this on 18 August 2023 and said it needed to ‘‘significantly improve its communication.’’ It offered the resident an apology and said it would resolve many of the outstanding issues within the next week. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint and wanted to put things right for the resident, there is no evidence the agreed actions were progressed. This further damaged the landlord’s relationship with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged on 1 September 2023 in its final complaint response that changes in staff over the previous 18 months had been problematic and its communication with the resident had been poor. It offered an apology and said a new housing officer had been appointed and would arrange to meet the resident to agree an action plan to help rebuild trust. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. Whilst it offered the resident £350 compensation for the inconvenience caused, no specific compensation was offered for its poor communication.
In summary, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it failed to take action, despite agreeing to do so. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and led to her having to chase the landlord up on numerous occasions. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about changes in housing officers and lack of communication, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

It is unclear from the housing records when the resident made a complaint. She told the landlord on 25 January 2023 that she had reported issues with the building on a number of occasions, but no action had been taken.
The landlord did not respond to the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so and confirmed whether she wished to make a complaint or whether it was treating her concerns as a service request. This was a failure. The Code says residents do not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such and landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 13 May 2023. The landlord responded on 15 May 2023 and confirmed it was treating her concerns as a complaint and said it would provide a response by 26 May 2023. Whilst this provided clarity and was in accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord did not seek to fully understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2023 and noted the landlord had failed to respond to her complaint by the deadline date.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023. This was 4 working days after the deadline date and was not consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation on 14 June 2023 for the distress and inconvenience experienced.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 June 2023. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident did not know when she could expect to receive a reply. She asked for an update on 3 July 2023 and told the landlord on 7 July 2023 that she wanted to make a complaint about her housing officer. Further request for updates were made on 18 July 2023 and 2 August 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 August 2023 and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It issued its final complaint response on 1 September 2023. This was over 2 months after the resident escalated her complaint and was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s offer of £350 compensation did not include a specific amount for its poor complaints handling.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. This led to the resident having to chase up the landlord and caused her time and trouble. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that her mobility scooter had been stolen and her request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about building repairs, cleaning and service charge costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about changes in housing officers and lack of communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of a pest infestation.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request to move.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her concerns about changes in housing officers and lack of communication.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
5. The £350 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding the automatic door closure system on the communal doors. If further work is required, the landlord must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing the work.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding the building cleaning schedule and advise her of the monitoring arrangements it has or plans to put in place to ensure cleaning standards are maintained. An update must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position and intentions regarding the CCTV system. An update must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding her request to move. An update must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to ensure its complaint handlers are clear as to the need to fully understand and address all aspect of complaints and that its compensation offers are sufficiently detailed so as to enable clarity as to the element covered in any offer made.