Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202101470)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101470

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

28 June 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs at the property from May 2020 onwards, and an associated offer of compensation.
2. Handling of heating system repairs prior to May 2020.
3. Handling of a management move.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

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, complaints 1(b) and (c) are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Repairs to the heating system prior to May 2020

Within her correspondence to both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has complained that the heating system within the property did not work for approximately ten years prior to her formal complaint in 2021. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
As matters become historic, they become harder for landlords to investigate. This can be owing to information no longer being available, or staff changes. For that reason, residents are encouraged to raise matters with their landlords while the situation is “live” so that a thorough investigation can be undertaken, and matters put right. Therefore, while the resident’s concerns are noted, we have not investigated matters dating back to 2011. However, our investigation has focused on the events from May 2020 leading up to the complaint in March 2021.

Management move

Within correspondence to this Service, the resident has explained that the landlord informed her that it would be arranging a management move due to ongoing personal issues and threats of domestic violence. The resident has expressed concern that while the landlord had initially agreed to arrange a move, she is still waiting for action to be taken.
While the resident’s concerns, and the serious nature of this matter, is acknowledged, this is not a matter which has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that the resident has raised her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the management move as a formal complaint. It follows that as this matter has not been raised with the landlord – and it has not been provided with the opportunity to consider and respond to the resident’s concerns – the Ombudsman cannot investigate it as part of this complaint. Should the resident remain concerned about the landlord’s handling of the management move, she should raise a formal complaint about the matter now.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property, which she occupies with her children. The tenancy began in March 2011.
On 20 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord as there was no hot water at the property. The landlord’s repair records show that during the call, the resident had advised that it had been an issue for “a while”. It is not entirely clear what transpired in response to this call; however, between 22 May and 2 June it was identified that there was a fault with the heating system and that it needed a “drain down”, or the replacement of an element.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 June. The notes read that it was reported that while operatives had attended that day to “rewire the element”, it was not working again, and there was no hot water at the property. Again, it is not clear from the records what action was taken; and the matter remained outstanding on 19 June.
Meanwhile, during July 2020, the resident contacted her MP for assistance. She explained that they had been without heating or hot water for 12 weeks, and that she was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the situation. The MP subsequently contacted the landlord on 17 July and asked if the issues which the resident had raised could be looked into as a matter of urgency.
A further job was raised on 23 July, and the notes read that an electrician was required to check the electrical supply to the heat pump and immersion element. The records suggest that this was raised again on 29 July; however, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of what action the landlord took.
The records suggest that in August, the resident reported further issues within the property including that the plaster within her daughter’s bedroom was falling off the walls as they were redecorating. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out at the property in September 2020, so that any outstanding repairs could be highlighted by the resident. The landlord subsequently arranged for the heating system to be replaced in September 2020; however, there were difficulties during the installation and it could not be completed during the initial attendance. The landlord’s contractor – who was carrying out the repair – advised on 2 September that they were waiting for a replacement part; and that the installation could be completed once this was received. The contractor added that it had arranged for three temporary heaters to be supplied to the resident to provide additional heat sources while the part was order. The system installation was completed, and left functioning on 8 September.
On 13 October, the landlord wrote to the MP and advised that repairs which had been undertaken in September had resolved the problem. It added that an electric shower had been installed too, so that if any future problems were to arise, they would have an alternative hot water source for bathing. It added that the original complaint had been closed, but that the resident had raised a few other issues which would be followed-up over the phone in “a couple of weeks’ time”.
On 4 January 2021, the resident reported a further loss of heating. The notes read “no heating in the property at all air source dimplex underfloor”. It is not clear what action was taken; however, the resident made a further call on 6 January to report that the kitchen floor felt “spongy”, that they were also without hot water, and that there was no heating upstairs.
Internal correspondence at the landlord shows that operatives attended on 12 January 2021 to carry out works to the heating system. Further remedial works had to be booked for the following week as there was a leak on the underfloor heating in the kitchen. The landlord’s Head of Empty of Homes advised that this was a separate issue from the initial repair, and that underfloor leaks could be “problematic and unpredictable”.
On 20 January, the repair records show that the living room underfloor heating was leaking, and that the water was escaping into the property below. The repair records do not contain any information about what action was taken on this date.
The landlord’s gas supervisor attended on 3 February to check a potential leak to the heating system. However, on further inspection, a roof leak was suspected and the heating system was found to be working “fine”. The resident was advised that someone would return the following week to rectify the roof leak. However, on 9 February, the resident reported a further loss of heating.
On 12 February 2021, internal correspondence was exchanged at the landlord and the property manager advised that the kitchen flooring would be removed to try to identify any leaks from the underfloor heating. The manager advised that it would be necessary to decant the resident for a few days; and asked if any Love to Shop vouchers could be sent to the resident in the interim as a goodwill gesture. The resolution team agreed to send the vouchers in the post on 17 February.
On 3 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint. She said:
1. The air fan system within the property had been an “ongoing nightmare” for her and her family as they had been let without heating, and at times, hot water.
2. She suffered from an underlying condition which was exacerbated by the cold, and it had been very difficult remaining in the property during periods of Covid-19 lockdown.
3. The landlord had provided portable fan heaters, but the use of these had resulted in high electricity bills.
4. She had requested a copy of the audit trail relating to the repairs, but had received no reply.
The resident provided a timeline of the events that had transpired from September 2020 leading up to the day of her complaint. She said that despite numerous attendances to the property by landlord staff the issue with the heating had yet to be resolved, and further repairs were required within the property following leaks within the kitchen. She added:
1. She was in arrears with her water company owing to leaks and escapes of water at the property.
2. She had been awarded £30 decorating vouchers, which was kind, but she did not wish to redecorate the property as she had lost motivation to do anything with it. She had also been offered a further £50 in Love to Shop Vouchers and £500 compensation, which were declined as she did not consider that the offer was proportionate in the circumstances.
3. While she understood that the situation with Covid had impacted the situation, she had been patient; however, the landlord had been “negligent”, and there was a lack of communication.
4. She wished to move from the property, and leave the “traumatic experience” behind.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, and sought further details from the resident so that the complaint could be raised and referred to the correct team for further investigation. Meanwhile a job was raised on 17 March for the kitchen flooring to be replaced, and the sub-base flooring too.
In April 2021, the resident contacted this Service for assistance. She advised that while she had raised a formal complaint, she was yet to receive a response. We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. Meanwhile the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 6 May – as he had also requested an update on the situation – and advised as follows:
1. Since its correspondence in October 2020, it had experienced further challenges that had resulted in the need for additional works.
2. The resident had been decanted and remedial works to the underfloor heating were complete – as was the installation of a new kitchen. The replacement of the kitchen floor remained outstanding.
3. The flooring and kitchen renewals were programmed for the end of April; however it was unable to find an appropriate decant for the resident. This had since been resolved; and the works were due to be completed on 7 May.
4. It had arranged for its Delivery Manager to meet with the resident following the installation of the kitchen to ensure that she was satisfied with the work. It had also kept in touch with the resident “constantly” to ensure that she was aware of the situation.
In response to our request, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 21 June. Within this it said:
1. It was writing to set out the remedial works which had been undertaken at the property. This included – renewal of the heating system, installation of an electric shower, remedial works to the underfloor heating in the kitchen, replacement kitchen flooring and the installation of a new kitchen.
2. The £500 which had been offered for “service delivery failure and subsequent disruption over the period” remained its offer, and it would need copies of utility bills for the period of service failure, and the previous year, to “enable a review of any additional offer”.
3. If the resident wished to accept this, she could advise as such in response. However, if she remained unhappy, she had the option to escalate to stage two.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service in July to advise that she had not received any compensation. Following further enquiries, the landlord informed us that as it had not received an escalation request to the stage one response, it had closed the complaint. We informed the resident as such, and provided advice about escalating her complaint.
On 4 August, the resident contacted this Service again and explained that she had requested the escalation of her complaint on 26 July, but had heard nothing further and had not received an acknowledgement. She confirmed that her outstanding concerns were – poor communication by the landlord, the amount of compensation, that she had ended up in arrears owing to the leaks and higher water rates, and that the heating had been an issue “for years”. We informed the landlord as such; and on 13 August it confirmed that the complaint had been re-opened and sent to a manager for review.
We chased the matter in September, and at the beginning of October as the resident had yet to receive a response. A final chaser was sent on 21 October. Following this, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 28 October 2021. Within this, it said:
1. It was of the understanding that all works had been completed.
2. The resident had previously been awarded £30 in decoration vouchers, £50 in Love To Shop vouchers, and £630 for food allowance (£15 per person for 14 days).
3. The resident had also been offered £500 in compensation for disruption and inconvenience caused.
4. Reimbursement for the additional use of energy was to be looked into following the submission of utility bills, but they had not been received. As such, reimbursement had not been discussed further.
5. The complaint had exhausted the complaints procedure, and would be closed. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could refer the matter to her MP or the Housing Ombudsman.
In November, the resident advised that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that the heating system had not worked properly and that she had three different systems installed during her ten years of living at the property. The resident added that the situation had been the cause of stress and being unable to heat the property had also affected her significantly given her underactive thyroid condition. The resident added that she did not consider that the landlord had taken all of this into consideration when responding to her complaint, and when offering compensation.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy (repairs policy) sets out the types of repairs and maintenance that the landlord will undertake in its properties, and the timeframes within which the repairs will be completed. The policy also details the categories into which repairs will be sorted – namely, emergency, out of hours, planned works, and improvement projects.
The repairs policy also provides that in certain circumstances the resident will compensate residents where there has been a failure in its service. For example, a failure to provide alternative heating while repairs are outstanding, loss of room or facilities and missed appointments.
The landlord’s complaints procedures is comprised of two stages. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that when it first receives a complaint, it aims to agree a solution with the customer within ten working days. If this is not possible, it may need a further ten days. If the resident is unhappy with the response at stage one, they have a right to review. The landlord aims to issue stage two responses within 20 working days; however, if it needs extra time, it may not be able to respond for a further 30 days.

Assessment and findings

Repairs at the property and offer of compensation

When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged that there had been service failure in relation to the heating system repair; however, it did not provide any further detail. As such, it is not clear what the landlord considered the service failure to be. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repairs logs to try to assess its response to the resident’s reports of heating system disrepair in 2020.
As detailed above, the resident reported a loss of hot water on 20 May 2020. The landlord’s repair logs detail that a job was raised and that it was categorised as an “emergency” repair. The repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be attended on the day where feasible, but “always within 24 hours” regardless of the time of day. As a minimum, the job will be made safe, and it may need to return at an agreed appointed time to complete any follow-on works.
The landlord’s repair records do not contain sufficient detail to establish what happened after the resident’s report was received. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to record what date and/or time the property was first attended, what the cause of disrepair was considered to be; and whether a repair – temporary or otherwise – could be carried out. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded all actions taken in ensuring that the resident was left with a working heating system. That the repair logs do not contain such information is indicative of poor record keeping. The landlord should now take steps to ensure that its record keeping processes are reviewed so that similar situations do not arise in the future.
As a result of the absence of information, the Ombudsman cannot assess the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s initial report in 2020, and determine whether they were in line with the landlord’s service standards as detailed in its repairs policy. This is a significant failing as the landlord’s poor record keeping has prevented the resident from having her concerns independently assessed by this Service.
The evidence suggests that the system replacement was not completed until 8 September 2020. This was approximately 16 weeks after the loss of hot water was first reported. While it is acknowledged that the process of restoring heating within the property was complex, the lack of evidence relating to the repair has prevented this Service from ascertaining whether the delay was unavoidable. As such, it is not possible to say whether the landlord unduly delayed in any aspect of the repair.
However, as detailed above, when the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged that there had been service failure in its response to the heating system disrepair. Prior to the stage one complaint response being issued, the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. It is noted that the resident was also offered Love to Shop vouchers, and decoration vouchers. The landlord also informed the resident’s MP that an electric shower had been installed so that the resident and her family could still have access to hot water for bathing if there were any problems in the future.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to try to put things right, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how the figure of £500 was reached. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to explain what the service failure was considered to be, and to provide a breakdown detailing all the elements that had been considered when reaching the overall figure – for example, the distress and inconvenience of being without heating and hot water, the impact of the delay and any other relevant issues. Detailing the compensation offer in such a manner would have demonstrated that the landlord had fully considered the impact of its failing, and given consideration to a proportionate figure. As the landlord did not communicate its offer in such a manner, the resident felt unable to accept it as she was of the opinion that her circumstances had not been given due consideration. This was a failing in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint and attempt to try to put things right.
It is noted that the resident had also raised concerns that the increase in her energy bills had not been taken into account when the landlord made its offer of compensation. The evidence shows that the landlord did inform the resident that it could consider this if she was to provide copies of her bill prior to the heating system disrepair, and a bill covering that period, so that it could assess what increase in usage and spending there had been. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she had not provided the landlord with any such information. If the resident still wishes to be reimbursed for any increase in expenditure, she should ensure that the landlord is provided with a copy of the relevant bills and/or statements.
Approximately four months after the heating system was replaced, the resident reported that there was a loss of heating throughout the property again. On 6 January it was recorded that there was a loss of hot water, and a loss of heating in the upstairs of the property. The resident also reported that the kitchen floor felt spongy and had stared to cave in. The resident advised that she suspected a leak. As the repair logs are lacking in information, the Ombudsman has used internal correspondence that was exchanged between landlord’s staff and the resident’s evidence to assess the actions that were taken to remedy the leak, and to carry out associated remedial works.
The resident says that an operative attended on 6 January and managed to restore the hot water, but informed her that two pumps were required to restore the heating to the to the property. The operative returned and replaced the pumps on 13 January; however, the heating could not be restored. It is not clear why this was the case; and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded this information within its repair logs.
By 15 January the landlord had identified that there was a leak to the underfloor heating system in the kitchen. This could not be repaired, and so the circuit was isolated. However, when it was recommissioned the landlord’s operatives noticed that the back-up immersion was not working and ordered a new one. By the end of January, it was confirmed that the underfloor heating system was still leaking and that further investigations would be required. The resident had also reported that a leak from her property was affecting the flat below. Investigations into the source of the leak were underway in February. The evidence suggests that the heating was restored at some point – however, it is not clear from the repair logs; and a further loss of heating was reported by the resident on 9 February.
The email trail between landlord staff shows that new parts for the heating system were expected on 1 March. An email that was sent on 23 February confirmed that the works would commence on 15 March, and that the resident would be decanted so that these could take place. The works did not commence as originally planned, but on 26 April instead. The resident and her family were decanted so that the works could be carried out. The kitchen was removed, and new flooring was installed as it had been damaged beyond repair. The kitchen installation was subsequently completed on 7 May 2021, and a plinth heater was installed as a future back up heater for the kitchen in the event of any problems in the future.
The evidence relating to the repair does suggest that it was complex. However, once again, as the records are lacking in detail, it has not been possible for this Service to establish whether any of the delay in completing the repairs could reasonably have been avoided. However, it is acknowledged that between January and April – until the decant – the resident was without both heating and hot water at various times. The leak within the kitchen had also affected the flooring and these issues were of significant inconvenience to the resident. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord fully acknowledged this and assessed whether the repair and associated works should have been better managed.
At some time between May and July 2021, the landlord agreed to pay the resident’s food allowance in full for the period of decant. On 1 July 2021, the resident confirmed that while she had received the food allowance; she remained unhappy as the landlord had not offered her anything in respect of the stress and inconvenience that they had been caused. The resident advised that on the day that they travelled to the decant property they were waiting for a considerable amount of time to be let in. The resident added that in addition to increased energy bills, they were without heating and hot water for “nearly a year”, and given the Covid-19 lockdowns, they did not have the option to go elsewhere. The resident said that she was in debt with her water rates owing to the leaks and despite all the issues they had experienced, they had not received any apology or explanation from the landlord.
When the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint it failed to address the repairs issues that had been raised at the property, and did not provide any explanation about the actions that it had taken to put things right. The landlord also failed to investigate and address the concerns that the resident had raised about accessing the decant property. The landlord simply confirmed that the works were complete, and that the resident had been awarded £630 in food allowance – in addition to the £500 compensation, £50 Love to Shop vouchers and £30 decoration vouchers that had been previously awarded. The landlord added that as no utility bills had been provided by the resident, reimbursement had not been discussed any further.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and its communication of the offer was once again poor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the repairs which were reported, the actions which were taken to remedy both the leak, the kitchen floor and the surrounding areas, and whether the its service standards had been met. Some reference should also have been made to the further losses of heating and hot water that the resident had experienced at the beginning of 2021. It would have also been reasonable to explain why paying the food allowance in full was considered to be a proportionate offer in the circumstances.
Internal correspondence at the landlord shows that the food allowance “was paid in full as a gesture of goodwill”; whereas the normal process would be to reimburse only what had been evidenced via receipts. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s decant policy as part of this investigation, and it is not possible to ascertain what food allowance had been claimed by the resident either. As such, it is not possible to assess whether the decision to pay the allowance in full was a reasonable and proportionate offer in the circumstances. In the absence of any such explanation, or evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s offer was fair and that it took into account all of the events leading to the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord departed significantly from its complaints policy when handling the resident’s complaint. The stage one response was issued 75 working days after the resident first raised her formal complaint on 1 March 2021. While it is noted that the landlord had been in communication with both the resident and her MP during this period, it is not clear why there was such a significant delay in issuing the stage one response. The resident clearly stated that she was making a formal complaint, and as such the landlord should have issued a response by 17 March – or 31 March at the latest if further time was needed – in line with the complaints policy. As the resident had not received a response to her complaint, she contacted us for further assistance. This was the cause of further inconvenience to the resident, and was not action that she should have had to take in the circumstances.
When the landlord issued its stage one response, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding, and this was inappropriate. In addition, the response was brief and failed to provide any explanation as to how the resident’s complaint had been considered. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain the events that had transpired between the first report of heating loss in May 2020, and the repair being completed. In doing so, it would have been reasonable to advise which delays, if any, were outside of its control; and to explain where the service failures had arisen. It would have also been reasonable to explain what measures the landlord was going to introduce to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future. The resident had also specifically mentioned a request for a copy of the repair logs relating to the property; however, this went unanswered.
After the stage one response was issued on 21 June, the resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July. While the resident did not explicitly ask for her complaint to be escalated, she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters and said that she considered further financial compensation was due in the circumstances. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint at this point. After contacting us for further assistance, it was established that the landlord did not consider that an escalation request had been received. Following this, the resident did write to the landlord to confirm that she wished to escalate her complaint on 26 July. However, she received no response. As such, we chased the matter in August and September, and asked the landlord to issue a stage two response. This was subsequently issued on 28 October – 85 working days after the resident’s email of 1 July, and 68 working days after her email of 26 July. This was yet another significant departure from the timescales detailed in the landlord’s policy; and again, it failed to acknowledge this delay within its complaint response.
The response at stage two was also brief and failed to explain how the resident’s complaint had been considered. The landlord did not provide any explanation about the actions it had taken in response to the leak; and whether or not it considered that it had responded appropriately. The response only referred to the food allowance payment, and previous offer of compensation, but failed to offer any explanation as to why it was considered that this was a fair and proportionate offer overall. The resident’s concerns about the inconvenience they experienced when first moving to the decant property also went unanswered. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate, and it should now take steps to put things right. The landlord should also ensure that reminders are issued to its staff about the timeframes detailed within its own policy; and the need to provide detailed complaint responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs at the property from May 2020 onwards, and an associated offer of compensation.
2. Complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged service failure in its handling of the heating system repairs between May and September 2020; however, it did not say what it considered the failing to be. The landlord’s repairs logs do not contain sufficient detail for the Ombudsman to assess its handling of the repairs, and the leak that occurred in the following months; and this in itself is a significant failing. While the landlord offered the resident some compensation and vouchers, it is not clear how the figure of £500 was reached. Within the stage two response the landlord advised that the food allowance during the decant was paid in full too as a gesture of goodwill. However, without reference to the decant policy, or evidence of what the resident had claimed, it is not clear why the landlord considered this to be a fair and proportionate offer in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate. The landlord departed significantly from the timescales detailed in its policy; and the responses were lacking in detail. The landlord failed to explain the actions it had taken in response to the heating system disrepair and the leaks in 2021, and did not address the resident’s concerns. In addition, it failed to offer any explanation as to how it had considered the resident’s request for compensation and therefore missed the opportunity to try to put things right.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Re-offer the £500 compensation, £50 Love to Shop voucher and £30 decoration voucher that was offered during the course of the complaints procedure, if not previously accepted.
3. Pay the resident a total of £650 comprised of:
  1. £350 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the repairs in relation to record keeping, and its compensation offers.
  2. £300 for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling.
1. Reimburse the resident for any increases in her energy and water bills. This order is dependent on the resident providing the landlord with the relevant billing information for the periods in question.

Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should remind staff of:
1. the importance of recording all details relating to jobs that are logged on its repairs system.
2. the timeframes detailed in the complaints policy; and the need to provide comprehensive, detailed complaint responses.

Evidence of the landlord’s actions should be provided to the Ombudsman.