Tendring District Council (202101347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101347

Tendring District Council

14 December 2021

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 regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of a Local Authority. She had resided at the property, a three-bedroom Grade II listed house, since 1997.
4. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook notes that different repairs have different priority ratings dependent on their urgency. These range from Priority 0 (emergency call-out, attend within 3 hours) to Priority 8 (low priority, attend within 56 days). 
5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its Complaints Policy states that it will provide a response at Stage One within 15 working days and within 20 working days at the following Review Stage. The landlord’s policy states that it aims to ‘provide…a substantial response which outlines the findings of the enquiries (or investigations where appropriate)’.

Summary of Events

6. On 10 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint. In her letter she raised the following concerns:
   1. There had been a ‘lack of repair work’ carried out on her property by the landlord and she had been advised in January (although which year was not mentioned) that ‘the work had been ordered for October 2019’.
   2. She reported an ‘ongoing and long running issue’ with water coming in through her roof, which affected one of her bedrooms, causing an ‘unbearable smell at times’ and meaning it was not a ‘healthy place to sleep’.
   3. She had ‘repeatedly reported blown plaster and falling artex’ in her front room, issues with skirting in her hallway and that a broken windown frame had only had a temporary repair carried out.
   4. She stated that she was ‘angry, frustrated and depressed’ at the prospect of having to endure another winter without the repairs being completed and advised that she had been unable to carry out redecoration in her front room because of problems with the plaster and artex.  
7. The landlord responded to the resident on 7 October 2020. It noted the resident had written regarding ‘the repairs that are outstanding’ and advised that, although she had stated that her roof was still leaking, ‘we were on the understanding (that) our contractor repaired the slipped slates he found at the back of the chimney’. It advised it would ‘have another look’ on 9 October 2020 and that ‘once we have fixed the roof then we can rectify your other repairs’.
8. Landlord records show that the resident emailed the following day to enquire if it had received ‘her written complaint in regards to long standing lack of repairs being carried out’. She advised she had been in contact with this Service and believed she should have had a response from the landlord by 6 October 2020, although as the landlord had written a response the previous day, it is noted that there may have been a delay in the resident receiving it via the post. The resident and landlord exchanged further emails and on 16 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to note that ‘surveyors were out to your home last week and yesterday looking at the roof with contractors’. It advised that the ‘necessary works to the roof’ were being planned and it would carry out a further visit ‘next week’ to ‘look at the internal issues’. The landlord also asked if the resident still wished to continue with her complaint. She replied the following day and confirmed she still wanted her complaint escalated ‘as it was 12 months ago that the roof issue should have been resolved and it wasn’t’.
9. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 21 October 2020, in response to its letter of 7 October. She stated she was pleased the landlord recognised there were multiple outstanding repair issues, rather than just the roof repair, which she stated had been ongoing for 15 years. She also recalled asking for a time frame regarding when the repairs to the roof, blown plaster and falling artex, rotten skirting board, deteriorating brickwork on the external wall and her bedroom window would be completed but had not been provided with one.
10. On 23 October 2020, the landlord replied and provided an update on some of the repairs, advising that its roofing contractors were in the process of applying for a pavement pass to erect scaffolding so they could access the roof to ‘carry out any other repairs that are required’. The landlord also advised that, once the scaffolding was up, it would ‘look inside the roof space’ to see what needs doing ‘and where it (water) is getting in’. Regarding ‘other repairs’, it further advised that its contractor would ‘come and have a look at what needs doing’ and would contact the resident to make arrangements.
11. The landlord provided its Stage Two complaint response on 13 November 2020. It stated that it understood the complaint to be regarding ‘repairs to…your home’ and noted its ‘regret’ over ‘the length of time it had taken to conclude the review’. In its response, the landlord:
    1. Advised that it had ‘every sympathy’ with the resident regarding ‘the leaking roof, the rotted rail of a window frame and the wall/plaster…which have been the subject of exchanges between you and (the landlord) for some time now’ and acknowledged that she may now ‘question when the repairs will be made to the required standard’.
    2. Stated its Building and Development Manager ‘does appear to be trying to keep you informed about repairs…and to be trying to progress those repairs’ and noted that it had arranged a cherry picker, commissioned contractors to assess repairs, authorised repairs and was ‘trying to schedule the timing of them with you’.
    3. Apologised that previous ‘repairs’ (the use of quote marks was the landlord’s own emphasis) to the resident’s roof and ‘holding repairs’ (again the landlord’s own emphasis) to her window ‘were not completed to a satisfactory level’. It advised that ‘you and (the landlord) were let down by the contractors engaged to undertake those works’ and that, as a result of this, future works to the roof, window frame, ‘and, in due course the wall/plaster’ would all be quality checked, ‘likewise the bedroom ceiling repairs and enhancements that will take place to the loft insulation’.
    4. Apologised again for the time taken to respond to the resident’s complaint and ‘for the length of time you have had to live with the issues of the leaking roof, damaged window frame etc’ and advised that it ‘had sought to remedy those issues previously but clearly they were not fixed’. It acknowledged that ‘that is something that should not have happened’. It noted that ‘the efforts now underway to effect good repairs/remedial work are what is needed’ and stated that the additional checking of future works ‘should give confidence…that this saga will come to an end’.
    5. Offered the resident compensation of £100 ‘in recognition of the time taken to reach this conclusion and the obvious anxiety that this position will have generated’.
12. On 15 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord in response to its Stage Two findings. She advised that she remained unhappy it had taken a complaint to address some of the repairs that had been outstanding for ‘years’ and, while she stated she was pleased that the landlord had now started works, she referred to the repairs which were still yet to be completed. She also declined the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation as she believed it was ‘insulting and derisory in view of the amount of time that I have waited for these repairs to be done’. She also stated that the landlord had not addressed her query regarding whether it still operated a three-stage complaint policy. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord specifically responded to the resident’s letter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

13. It is not disputed that the resident reported various repair issues at her property, including a leaking roof, a rotten window frame and blown plaster and damaged artex to one of her ceilings and the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there were ‘several outstanding repairs’ at her property. As part of this investigation, this Service asked the landlord for records concerning its investigation into the resident’s repair reports (including ‘leaks, problems with the roof…damage to the flooring, walls and plaster and issues with the window frame, bedroom ceiling and loft insulation’). The landlord was also asked to provide copies of survey and inspection reports, feedback from contractors, repair logs and details of when it attended the property to complete works and details of any works that remained outstanding.
14. From the information provided to this Service, while it is apparent the landlord has attended the property on various occasions since the resident’s initial repair reports, it is difficult to establish a precise chronology and summary of events regarding how it has handled the repairs. In particular, regarding the leaking roof, it is difficult to confirm whether the landlord has fully established the cause of the leak.
15. Landlord repair logs, contained within internal email correspondence, indicate that it raised an order on 8 July 2019 to inspect the resident’s property following reports of ‘various issues regarding leak and asbestos’. Two days later, a further inspection order was raised to ‘inspect roof and rectify’. Further orders were raised on 3 October 2019 – ‘inspect ceiling as tenant says it needs boarding where leak was coming through in bedroom. Also says Artex in front room damp and going in the carpet’ – and on 11 November 2019 – ‘cut out part of ceiling in bedroom and board to check if still leaking’ (this order was then duplicated on 6 January 2020).
16. This Service has not seen further records that show the outcomes of the inspections raised in July 2019. While the further repair orders noted above indicate that the landlord sought to ‘check’ if the roof was still leaking in November 2019, no evidence has been provided to this investigation regarding how the repair was being investigated or progressed until a further repair log from 17 January 2020 which notes ‘(contractor) quoting for roof repairs’. This is not appropriate and means that some six months had passed since the resident’s initial report before the landlord noted that a contractor was quoting for works. This is a significant delay and the lack of comprehensive repair logs means that the landlord is unable to evidence what, if any, actions it took in the meantime. It is also noted that, after the entry made on 17 January 2020, this Service has not seen any further information regarding the quote itself, such as what the contractor was quoting for or when the work was carried out. This is not appropriate and again means the landlord is not able to evidence that it was progressing the repair in accordance with its repair responsibilities.
17. There are no further records relating to the roof repair until after the resident lodged her complaint in September 2020, advising that it had not been resolved. This was unacceptable and is evidence of a further significant delay, which is likely to have caused the resident considerable inconvenience. In response to her complaint, the landlord advised it would ‘have another look’ on 9 October 2020 and that ‘once we have fixed the roof then we can rectify your other repairs’. However, this Service has not seen evidence of the outcome of that inspection. This is not appropriate, and the landlord’s lack of comprehensive repair records again means it is not able to adequately show what steps it took to deal with the issue, and it is unable to demonstrate whether it responded appropriately.
18. This Service notes that, in internal correspondence on 30 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged that ‘there does seem to be some sort of communication breakdown on certain repairs i.e. the roof and the window works, where we have thought the issue was sorted but then finding out it has (sic) not’. It also noted ‘we have made repairs and not kept (the resident) informed so that she does not realise we have been carrying out work’. The landlord noted it attended the resident’s property on 29 October 2020 ‘to see actually what we are dealing with’ and states that ‘there is an issue with the roof’. However, while it states the matter is ‘in hand’ as contractors are awaiting a permit to erect scaffolding and further investigate the roof issue, it does not provide any further details and this Service has again not seen any further information regarding any inspections or follow-on work carried out by the contractors. From the information made available to this investigation, it remains unclear what the issue with the resident’s roof actually was. This is not acceptable and raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and how it managed its repair responsibilities.
19. Following the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2020, exchanges between the resident and landlord in December 2020 indicate that the landlord had attended the property to carry out works. The resident thanked the landlord for carrying out ‘the brick replacement’ but queried when ‘an actual roofer’ would go into her loft to see if the repair had worked. While this indicates that the landlord had now attempted a repair to the roof, this Service has not seen any evidence that details the work that was carried out, or when it was completed. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 December 2020 to advise it would carry out a further inspection and requested the resident’s availability, however, this Service has not seen evidence regarding when the inspection ultimately took place or what the findings were.
20. It is noted that the resident, in correspondence with this Service, states that the roof was ‘only patched up’ and the matter has not been fully resolved. The landlord has, in the information provided to this investigation, indicated that there is no work outstanding at the property, although it simultaneously advised that some work had been cancelled as it was not able to arrange access, including the replacement of four vented roof slates in April 2021. From the information available, this Service will not be able to determine whether the roof repair has been completed, however an order has been made at the end of the report for the landlord to carry out a final inspection and write to the resident with confirmation of the outcome and details of any further works identified.
21. The email referred to in Paragraph 18 also addresses the repair to the resident’s window which the landlord notes was ‘rotten and needs replacing’. However, it goes on to state that ‘we thought this had been done but this is definitely not the case’. While it noted that it had authorised contractors to ‘rectify’ the window, this again indicates that the landlord had not appropriately managed the repair in the first place and had not overseen the work carried out on its behalf. From the landlord’s own records, it initially raised a repair to ‘overhaul/repair wooden external window frames until scheme is sorted to replace’ in August 2018. That it responded some two years later and confirmed it believed repairs had been completed when they had not was unacceptable. Its handling of the repair was not appropriate and contributed to a further significant and avoidable delay in completing a repair. It is noted that, in correspondence with this Service during the investigation, the resident maintains that the window has still not been fully fixed, as a ‘temporary’ or ‘holding’ repair was carried out which has not been followed up on. Again, in the absence of any comprehensive repair logs, this Service has not seen evidence regarding the work the landlord carried out to the resident’s window, or when this took place. The landlord is therefore again unable to evidence whether it responded appropriately to the repair reports, or whether there were any factors which may have reasonably contributed to this significant delay.
22. While the landlord has, in its correspondence with the resident, and within its complaint responses, acknowledged there were other, internal repair issues outstanding, including repairs to blown plaster and damaged artex on her ceiling, this Service has not seen any evidence that these have been completed, despite having been initially raised in July and October 2019. This is unacceptable. While the landlord’s position that it would carry out internal repairs once the roof leak was completed was reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was still a significant delay which was likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It is noted that in its submissions to this investigation in July 2021, the landlord advised it still needed access to the property to ‘make sure the roof is now watertight’ and that there were repairs outstanding in the loft and the bedroom but its contractor was ‘finding it hard to make contact with the tenant’.
23. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has advised that the landlord did attend to ‘board her ceiling up’ in either October or November 2021 but that she had otherwise ‘given up’ chasing the landlord regarding the issue. While it is not disputed that the landlord has attended to carry out some repairs and following her complaint in September 2020 it was positive that it had regular communication with her and attempted to provide updates on the various repairs, it is a significant concern that in late 2021 the landlord still appears to be attending to repairs initially reported in July 2019, over two years earlier.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

24. After the resident raised a complaint on 10 September 2020 regarding the ‘lack of repair work’ at her property (including the roof repair, broken window frame and issues with blown plaster and falling artex), the landlord responded on 7 October 2020. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding ‘the repairs that are outstanding’ and provided an update regarding when a further inspection of her roof would be carried out as it had previously been of ‘the understanding that our contractors’ had completed a repair. It also advised that ‘the repairs internally’ would be rectified once the roof had been fixed but that before then, it would inspect to ‘see exactly what needs to be carried out’.
25. However, while providing the resident with an update, its response was brief and did not acknowledge, or properly address, her concerns over the length of time that had already been taken to deal with the repairs she had reported. Additionally, other than advising when it would aim to carry out a further inspection of the roof, it did not give any time frame for when it aimed to resolve the issues. Records show that an order had been raised regarding her window over two years earlier, while a roof inspection order was raised in July 2019. That the landlord did not acknowledge either of these apparently significant delays was not appropriate, especially as the resident had advised that the situation had caused her to feel ‘angry and depressed’ and its response did not demonstrate that it considered the effect the delayed repairs were having upon her.
26. It was also not appropriate that, within its response, the landlord did not provide the resident with more of an indication as to when it anticipated that it would carry out the yet to be identified works following its inspection. While it is acknowledged that some actions and timescales would be dependent on the outcome of the inspection, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord still missed an opportunity to fully respond to the resident’s concerns and to provide a more detailed explanation of the actions it had taken to progress the repairs so far. It also did not treat her fairly by providing an idea of how much longer the works may take.
27. It was also not clear that the landlord’s letter of 7 October 2020 constituted its formal response to her complaint. It did not allocate the complaint a reference number, make any reference as to which stage of the complaint process it was responding at, provide any information regarding the resident’s complaint escalation rights, or how the complaint would proceed through its procedures. It was only in the landlord’s Stage Two complaint letter that it clarified it considered the letter of 7 October 2020 to be its initial complaint response. This was not appropriate and meant that the landlord did not initially handle the resident’s complaint transparently or in accordance with its own policies. As noted above, the landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it will ‘provide…a substantial response which outlines the findings of the enquiries (or investigations where appropriate)’ and there is no evidence that it did this in its initial response.
28. Subsequently, in its Stage Two complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the repairs issues outlined by the resident had been ‘the subject of exchanges (between us) for some time now’. It advised that it had ‘every sympathy’ with the resident and that ‘it must make you question when the repairs will be made to the required standard’. This was an appropriate response and indicated that the landlord understood how the delayed repairs were likely to have impacted upon the resident. While advising that it did not ‘take away from the amount of time to get to this point’, it stated that it was now trying to keep her informed about the repairs and ‘trying to progress those repairs’, noting some of the steps it had recently taken to inspect the property, erect scaffolding, and commission repairs via a contractor. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response remained vague and lacked detail. It failed to acknowledge exactly how long it believed the delays were and did not refer to individual repairs or provide an indication as to when the resident could expect them to be completed. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out, landlords should ‘clearly set out what will happen and when’ and it did not do so in this case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s Stage Two response did not amount to a ‘substantial response’, nor did it fully outline any findings of the enquiries it had made into her complaint. This was not appropriate and meant that the resident was not treated fairly during the complaint handling process.
29. It is also noted that the landlord’s Stage Two response went on to advise the resident that both she, and it, had been ‘let down’ regarding the standard of repairs previously carried out by a contractor. However, the landlord again should have provided more detail, such as specifying the failings it had identified and outlining the enquiries or investigations it had carried out to reach that conclusion. It is important to note that whether carrying out the work itself or contracting the works out, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the repairs were carried out and that they were done to an acceptable level. While it may have been the case that its contractor did not carry out work to an acceptable standard, and this Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s enquiries into this, it was not appropriate that the landlord’s response appeared to absolve itself of responsibility for the standard of repairs carried out on its behalf.
30. It was appropriate the landlord sought to assure the resident that, as work carried out previously had been unsatisfactory, it would ensure that it checked upcoming works to the roof, window frame and wall/plaster. As per the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, identifying actions that can put a matter right is essential for effective complaint handling. It is important however that such actions are then progressed within an acceptable timescale. From the information available to this Service, it is unclear when, or if, these repairs were attended to and whether they have been quality checked as the landlord promised. This was not appropriate.
31. It was a reasonable response for the landlord to offer a further apology to the resident ‘for the time taken to send you this letter and, more substantially, for the length of time you have had to live with the issues of the leaking roof, damaged window frame etc.’. It noted that it had ‘sought to remedy those issues…but clearly they were not fixed’ and that this was something ‘that should not have happened’. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and indicated that it acknowledged that the significant delays to the repairs were likely to have had a detrimental impact on the resident and how she enjoyed the use of her home.
32. Having indicated that it acknowledged the significant, and apparently largely avoidable, delays in carrying out the various repairs in the resident’s property, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation. However, its offer of £100 (which it described itself as ‘modest’) ‘in recognition of the time taken to reach this conclusion and the obvious anxiety that this position will have generated’ was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, inadequate. As part of this investigation, this Service asked the landlord to provide an explanation of how it calculated the compensation it awarded, but it did not supply this within the information it provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, at the time of its final complaint response (November 2020), the landlord should have used its discretion to award a higher amount that properly reflected the significant length of time taken to address issues the resident raised in 2018 and 2019 and the inconvenience and distress that this would have caused to the resident.
33. As a result of the absence of comprehensive repair logs, it is difficult to calculate the exact length of the delays relevant to each repair. However, using the date of the landlord’s final complaint response as a reference point, it is noted that at this time 118 weeks had elapsed since the landlord raised an initial repair order regarding the resident’s window repair in August 2018. Similarly, 70 weeks had elapsed since the first inspection order was raised to inspect ‘various repairs’ and the roof leak in July 2019. Taking into consideration the landlord’s repairs handbook outlines that, non-urgent repairs should be completed within a maximum of 56 days, the repair to her window was at least 110 weeks overdue. Similarly, under its Right to Repair responsibilities, roof repairs should be resolved within 7 days, indicating that the repair was 69 weeks overdue. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £10 per week for the roof repair and £7 per week for the window repair would be more reflective of the inconvenience and impact these significant repair delays had on the resident. The Ombudsman also considers that a further award should be made to reflect the delays to the additional repairs and the poor quality of its initial complaint response.

The landlord’s record keeping

34. As referred to in Paragraphs 16, 21 and 33, the repair records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in their records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.
35. Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted with the landlord’s record keeping, the resulting impact on its ability to ensure that repairs were completed to an appropriate standard, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint.
    3. Service failure by the landlord regarding its record keeping.

Reasons

37. The landlord has acknowledged there were significant delays in addressing the repairs reported by the resident, particularly regarding her leaking roof and rotten window frame. It has not been able to provide any detailed repair records that evidence the inspections it carried out, or their findings, or the work it has ordered and/or carried out. Aside from advising that it had been ‘let down by a contractor’ regarding some repairs, it has not been able to provide a satisfactory explanation for why the repairs were not appropriately addressed for such a long period of time and while it apologised to the resident and did provide better communication regarding the progress of repairs in late 2020, its responses were often vague and did not provide her with a clear timeframe for when the matters would be resolved. The landlord is not able to evidence that it has completed the repairs and it is noted that the resident believes they have still not been adequately resolved. While the landlord offered an apology for the delays to the repairs, it only offered ‘modest’ compensation which did not amount to reasonable redress for the inconvenience and distress these will have caused.
38. The landlord’s complaint responses were brief and did not provide evidence of the enquiries it had carried out to investigate the resident’s concerns. Its original response did not address the full extent of the delays or provide any explanation for why they had happened. It was also issued without outlining the status of the resident’s complaint or advising her of her complaint escalation rights.
39. The landlord’s Stage Two response appropriately contained an apology but, while it provided further details regarding the delays, it did not appear to take full responsibility for the actions of its contractors and its compensation offer did not adequately reflect the length of the repair delays or the impact these would have had on the resident.
40. While the landlord did attend the resident’s property to carry out inspections and work orders at various times, there are significant gaps in its records. There is also evidence that its poor record keeping contributed to it not being clear itself whether certain repairs had been completed. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord has not provided records of the inspections it completed, or full records of the work carried out, and this has meant it has not been able to demonstrate the steps it took to resolve the repairs. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, so it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
    1. Issue a further apology to the resident for how it has handled the repairs to her property. This should be from a suitably senior member of staff – Head of Service or an equivalent.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2,110 compensation, consisting of:
       1. £770 (110 x £7) for the delay to the window repair.
       2. £690 (69 x £10) for the delay to the roof repair.
       3. £300 for the delay to repairs to blown plaster and artex.
       4. £350 to reflect its poor complaint handling of the resident’s complaint and its failure to keep adequate records regarding this case (made up of £250 for the complaint handling and £100 for the record keeping).
    3. Carry out a further, final inspection of the property (with particular regards to the roof, window frame and plaster/artex issues) and to write to the resident to confirm its findings and provide a plan of action, including time frames, for any further works identified. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of its letter and details of its findings.

Recommendations

42. The landlord should carry out a review of its findings and remedies set out in this report and draw up an action plan to improve its repairs service delivery. This review should be led by a suitably senior member of staff (Head of Service or equivalent).
43. The landlord should review the performance of the individual contractors used in this case and ensure that any performance related matters are raised via its contract management and monitoring processes.
44. The landlord should ensure that its overall contract management and monitoring of contractor performance is robust and that any lessons learned from its complaint investigations are fed back to the relevant parties.
45. The landlord should review its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs, taking into account the comments in this investigation report. It should ensure that it has robust record keeping arrangements in place which allow it to provide clear audit trails of all actions taken.
46. The landlord should share the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with all staff dealing with resident complaints and ensure they have had up to date training regarding best practice in responding to complaints.