Thurrock Council (202004501)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004501

Thurrock Council

12 July 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 response to the residents reports of:
1. The initial blocked drain at the property and CCTV survey.
2. Delays to repairs at the property.
3. Lack of PPE worn by contractors.
4. Her request for a temporary decant.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.
6. Her request for a permanent decant.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord handling of the resident’s request for a permanent decant is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 23 (a) of the Scheme says, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The resident raised the issue about landlord handling of her request for a permanent decant after the other complaints had already completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. As the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to this issue, the matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom flat. The resident has two sons with recorded vulnerabilities; one son has Perthes disease and the other son has environmental allergies. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal director review of the decision and a response should be provided within 20 working days.
Under the contractors Covid-19 operating procedures works should be planned to minimise the frequency, time and number of people involved in the task. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be used as a final means of protection and should be used in accordance with the relevant risk assessments. If the tenants are not confirmed as having COVID-19 or self-isolating then no additional PPE is needed.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining “basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste and water pipes”. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is required to maintain the structure and exterior of the property including “cisterns, tanks, pipes, wires and drains in the property”
Under the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for “moving furniture and lifting carpets to allow repairs to be done. If carpets have not been lifted, then the landlord cannot be held responsible for any damage done”.
Under the tenancy agreement where a decant is necessary the landlord “will assist with the removal and storage of personal possessions which are non-essential during the decant period. Some items may remain in the property as long as it does not interfere with the work however the landlord will not accept any liability or responsibility for damage caused to items whilst they remain”.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the response times for different types of repairs, it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs should be completed within 5 working days and routine or batch repairs within 20 working days.
Under the landlord’s tenancy policy the following criteria would normally require the tenant be decanted:
1. Essential facilities such as the bathroom, cooking facilities, water, electricity or gas cannot be used for more than 24 hours; or
2. Staying in the property would significantly adversely affect the customers health or safety; or
3. The circumstances of the case require it.

Under the policy, residents will be encouraged to make their own arrangements for temporary accommodation. If this is not possible, the landlord will assist the customer to arrange a temporary move to another council property or, if that is not possible, to a private sector property.

The landlord’s repairs policy explains it has an obligation to consider the health and wellbeing of vulnerable individuals living in its properties, this includes residents with physical disabilities.

Summary of events

This investigation report deals with two separate complaints from the resident that have both completed the landlord’s complaints process. The first complaint was made on the 17 April 2020 and was regarding the landlord’s initial response to reports of flooding at the property. The second complaint was made on 17 August 2020 which raised issues about the quality of repairs performed at the property and was about issues that arose after the first formal complaint. There is overlap between the two complaints.
In September 2019, emergency contractors attended the property to clear a blocked stack, a CCTV drainage survey was recommended by the contractor but it was determined by the landlord not to be required.
In October 2019, the resident reported raw sewage coming up through the bath and emergency contractors attended the property and cleared the blockage. Recommendations for a CCTV drainage survey were resubmitted to the landlord but as wet wipes turned out to be the cause of the blockage it was determined not to be required. The landlord agreed if there were further similar instances the CCTV survey would be reconsidered.
On 13 April 2020, the resident reported that there was an uncontainable leak from the bathroom, an operative attended as an emergency and it was reported that the leak had been rectified. The operative identified the basin, shower and toilet pan were all blocked and that drainage operatives would be required to attend.
On 14 April 2020, the CCTV survey was completed. Whilst awaiting the results of the survey, emergency works were raised on 15 April 2020. The resident reported that the toilet was bubbling and sewage had back surged up into the hand wash basin and the walk in shower.
On 17 April 2020, the resident raised a complaint about ongoing drainage issues at the property. She said that a flood left ‘major damage’ to her flooring, walls and carpet. She highlighted the delay in the landlord completing the CCTV survey and advised that if it had been performed when recommended the flooding would not have occurred. She complained about the amount of time it had taken to get the results of the CCTV survey as no repairs had been done. She said that that the smell inside the property was ‘unbearable’ and dirty water had got beneath the flooring in four areas which ‘ruined it’ and that she is unable to get rid of the smell. The landlord raised work orders for a chemical toilet to be delivered that day.
On 21 April 2020, the resident reported a burst pipe and flooding and an emergency contractor attended on the same day and identified the issue as a burst water pipe, the problem was fixed and the cistern at the property was left working.
On 23 April 2020, the landlord inspected the property and determined that there was no need for an immediate decant of the resident as there was not an uncontainable leak, sewage discharge or back surge currently ongoing.
On 24 April 2020, following the results of the CCTV survey, works began at the property. The landlord agreed to review the floor condition beneath the pan and cistern, dig up and renew the collapsed pipe which caused the blockage and remove the cold water storage tank and connect the cistern to the mains to assist with water fill rate.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following issues:
1. CCTV survey– it acknowledged that it was recommended in September and October 2019 however due to the cause of the blockage being fixed on the first occasion and identified as wet wipes and rectified on the second it determined that it was not required at the time. It assured the resident that if any further issues were reported than the decision would be reconsidered.
2. Delays to repairs – works commenced at the property on 24 April 2020 with an anticipated completion date of 27 April 2020 in line with its repairs policy.
3. It would undertake any repair works to damp and delaminating walls as well as skirting boards in the bedroom, hallway, bathroom and toilet.
4. The resident was given a dehumidifier to assist with extraction of moisture at the property. The resident was advised that it may take up to 7 days to achieve a suitable level of dryness before any plastering and redecoration works could be complete.
5. It advised the resident that she would need to take up the laminate and carpet in affected areas to allow for drying. It stated that it would environmentally clean all floor surfaces to eliminate any mould and disinfect the property.
6. The landlord informed the resident that the agreed schedule of works will not include the renewal of floor covering as this is considered to be resident’s responsibility and she would need to pursue any replacement via an insurance claim.
7. It highlighted that based on the time scale for completion of works, level of disruption and the clear schedule, a temporary decant was not deemed required at this time.
8. Workers not wearing PPE – It investigated the matter and confirmed that whilst all operatives had been issued with PPE, individual risk assessments were undertaken by attending operatives and where a resident reports that no-one in the household had any symptoms relating to COVID-19, operatives were not required to wear additional PPE.
On 27 April 2020, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 14 May 2020, the landlord attended the property and it was decided that due to the damp levels and the level of further works identified it would not be able to perform the works within two days. It advised that the resident needed to be decanted from the property as she would be without a bathing facility for a considerable period and to reduce obstruction and inconvenience which may be caused during the works.
On the 18 May 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response and addressed the following:
1. That all repair works orders and inspections were completed in line with repair policy timeframes. There was no suggestion that the blockages originated at the fault of the resident.
2. It confirmed that following government guidelines only emergency repairs were to be undertaken and works at the property were considered urgent and therefore had been progressed as required.
3. That the lack of PPE used by operatives was outlined within the initial complaint response. It informed the resident that if she expressed concerns about operatives attending the property then steps could be taken to ensure additional PPE would be worn.
4. Post inspection works were carried out on 27 April 2020 to determine the required remedial works including:
  1. Rectify leak to stopcock in kitchen and treat mould behind unit.
  2. Overhaul kitchen taps as these are constantly running.
  3. Rectify leak to water main feeding the wash hand basin.

It confirmed an appointment with the resident for 14 May 2020. It was determined on that day that the area was too damp to carry out the works and that it would contact the resident.

It highlighted that the required remedial works still outstanding include renew door frame, renew wet room floor, renew skirting in wet room and hallway, plastering work in wet room and hallway and bedroom, lay vinyl tiles, block up the hole where the tank was removed and mist coat newly plastered area.

On 18 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for escalation to stage three of the landlord complaints process. The resident raised the following issues:
1. That cameras were not used when first suggested to the landlord by the contractor and this resulted in further flooding and damage to her property.
2. She was told the wet closet would be fixed in one day but it ended up taking several days.
3. Contractors that have visited the property have not known the job history and have had to be updated by herself.
4. She was told work in the wet room would be completed in two days, however this was still outstanding.
5. That the surveyor and supervisor had been unable to identify damp and why there were no readings taken before 14 May 2020.
6. There was no early mould treatment used and she asked why she had been asked to run a dehumidifier.
7. Lack of PPE worn by contractors attending the property.
8. Lack of communication from the repairs team –she had only received updates when she contacted to request them.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage 3 response. It addressed the following issues:
1. CCTV survey – this was addressed in the landlord’s stage one response.
2. The repairs delay – Initial WC works were scheduled to take place over two one day periods on 24 April and 27 of April 2020 however due to a further leak at the property the works took longer than anticipated but still in line with its repair’s timeframes.
3. Contractors not having approprate job history – it advised that all operatives who attended the property were given a summary of the history of the job they attended and would have been aware of the reason for their attendance. It stated that they might not know the full history of the works as it is not required to complete their works.
4. Wet room works not completed – it had been previously discussed that the works could not begin until the resident was decanted.
5. No early mould treatment used – the cause of the mould was a result of a minor leak, the resident was advised that once the units were removed the walls will be assessed and mould treatment applied.
6. Why the damp levels were not recorded prior to 14 May – moisture levels were taken on 5 May 2020 and it was determined insufficient for immediate work to start, a new date was set for 14 May 2020 and it was deemed to be enough time for the wet room to dry. Works planned on 14 May did not proceed because further building works and renewals were identified over the originally specified works and not solely due to the level of dryness of the surfaces to be worked on.
7. Reasons the resident was told to run a dehumidifier – this was addressed in the landlord stage one response.
8. Lack of PPE worn – Addressed in stage one and two complaint response.
9. Decant – a temporary decant was offered to the resident due to the works required, as these works resulted in washing facilities being temporarily unavailable. Permanent decants are only considered in exceptional circumstances, where the works to be completed are expected to take a significant amount of time and are over and above what is considered as a remedial repair.
On 27 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the decant situation and that the landlord put the resident in properties that were unsuitable for her son’s disability. She raised why the properties were not checked by the landlord before they were offered to the resident. The resident also stated that her windows were being left open at the property which was causing a significant security risk for her belongings and asked why this was not identified by the contractors who were performing the works.
On 31 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint from the 27 July 2020 and stated that the accommodation that was offered to the resident was family accommodation which had two rooms that interconnected and had two bathrooms, therefore this was deemed suitable. The landlord was also advised by the restaurant at the accommodation that she could take food to the room if that was easier for her son. The landlord advised it felt these steps to be reasonable as a temporary measure.
On 17 August 2020, the resident returned to the property and informed the landlord a number of issues with the works performed and also the state the property was left by the contractors. The resident raised the following issues:
1. Dust and dirt all throughout the property, dark stains appeared on multiple walls where it was still damp. Walls were showing bumps in areas where they had not dried correctly. The floor had bubbled and lifted in areas and gaps were visible on the edges of the wet room where it had not been sealed.
2. There was damage to several personal items and belongings including her telephone line and Wi-Fi. The contractors had moved / unplugged the freezer and all food was spoiled and rotting.
3. Contractors had used her son’s bedroom as a storage facility and left a thick layer of dust and dirt and he was unable to stay at the property due to his asthma.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord confirmed that it would provide a stage one response within 7 working days.
On 24 August 2020, the landlord attended the property to perform an inspection and informed the resident that it would provide a list of follow up works with its stage one response.
On 26 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a stage one complaint about the problems raised by the resident on 17 August 2020. It addressed the following issues:
1. It had accompanied the resident back to the property and allowed her to move and relocate personal belongings from areas where works would commence. It highlighted that a large number of personal belongings were left in the master bedroom and living room, this was photographed and moved by the contractors and coved in plastic sheet for protection.
2. Its contractors put measures in place to limit the amount of dust and cleaned the area on two separate occasions prior to the resident’s return. It acknowledged that dust may have settled in areas they were unable to clean due to the residents’ personal belongings.
3. It acknowledged that there was a power outage at the property at some point over the decant and that the dehumidifier stopped working but works did not proceed until the building fabric was dry. It said that a joint inspection would be undertaken and any further remedial works will be completed in line with its repairs policy.
4. It has been unable to substantiate damage to the resident’s phone cable and therefore the repair would be considered the residents responsibility. In regard to the freezer, it again acknowledged a power outage at some stage of the repairs if the resident wished to claim for any lost items she should use her personal insurance.
The resident asked for escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, this service was not provided with the communication.
On 7 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage two response and outlined a number of outstanding repairs issues including:
1. Wet floor room -the capping to the perimeter of the flooring will be re-fixed with mechanical fixings, followed by sealing and making good to the area behind door and the area to the left-hand side of the wash hand basin.
2. Hallway plasterwork and master bedroom – there were some minor imperfections that would be attended to but all moisture readings taken during the inspection were within tolerance levels.
3. Laminate flooring – there were some minor areas within the living room that showed signs of buckling, however it was confirmed that this can be caused due to changes in temperature and humidity levels. At the time of the inspection there were two localised areas that showed slightly raised moisture readings and upon speaking to the resident the landlord confirmed that the flooring is kept clean by way of mopping.
On 17 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about a letter received from the landlord’s insurance company. It said that the landlord had shown no negligence towards her situation and that repairs were carried out and the problem resolved and corrected. It stated that ‘no complaints were made and it was the matter of a leak and that the resident had not suffered a flood’. The resident raised that this was incorrect and an issue that had been ongoing for over a year and that they did not ask her for any information regarding the problem.
On 21 September 2020, the landlord attended the property to assess what further repair options were available this included further remedial works to the existing wet room or converting the wet room back to a standard bathroom. It was identified that the resident would need to be decanted again for the works to be performed. The resident agreed to decant on a permanent basis, opposed to a further temporary decant.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s email from the 17 September 2020 and stated that her complaint had been fully investigated and had completed its complaints process. It provided the Ombudsman’s information for the resident to contact.
On 28 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to express her ‘absolute disgust’ with the stage two complaint response. She raised the points stated in paragraph 28 above and stated that it was not because of her actions that the damage was caused. She asked when the landlord was going to come and fix the issues at the property and who would be held responsible for leaving her windows open and unattended during the night. She stated that a soap holder has broken during installation which caused ‘horrific injuries to her son’. She highlighted that it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the pipe work at the property and urged for the matter to be ‘investigated properly’.
On 29 September 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and said that her complaint would be escalated to stage three of its complaints process. The resident did not confirm to the landlord if she wanted to proceed with the stage three complaint.
On 12 November 2020, the resident asked for a permanent decant due to deteriorating condition at the property due to rushed works. She stated that the issue was currently before the housing panel.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord agreed to a permanent decant for the resident to minimise the impact of a further temporary move. It highlighted that once relocated the resident would retain her original application date and then be permitted to bid on houses.
In February 2021, the resident was permanently decanted from the property and moved into a new residence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of the initial blocked drain at the property and CCTV survey

The resident raised issues regarding a blocked stack and sewage coming up through the pipes in both September and October 2019. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to make the appropriate repairs. Under the landlord repairs policy blocked or leaking drains should be treated as an emergency repair and completed within 24 hours. Contractors attended the property on both occasions within the required time to clear the blockages and both recommended a CCTV survey to properly assess the issue. The landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach and comply with the recommendation from its contractors as it believed that the issue was identified and fixed.
The landlord appropriately disclosed that if there were further similar instances the CCTV survey would be reconsidered however as two separate contractors had recommended the CCTV survey it should have been completed in line with the recommendations (although it is not reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to perform the CCTV survey directly resulted in further blockages) However, if the problem had been assessed as recommended on two occasions then approprate repairs could have been performed. The landlord contracts to specialists for their professional opinion and in this case, not following the contractor’s recommendations was a failure.

Delays to repairs at the property

It is accepted by both parties that there were some delays to the repairs at the property. Initial works commenced on the 24 April 2019 and were meant to be completed the same day, however there was a further flood and completion didn’t happen until 27 April 2020. The landlord reinspected the property on 27 April 2020 and appropriately agreed to carry out remedial works on 5-6 May 2020 once the property was sufficiently dry. Due to the length of time that the resident would be without a toilet, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had a chemical toilet delivered to the property. The landlord also supplied the resident with a dehumidifier to dry out the dampness so that works could continue. Under the landlord’s repairs policy emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and urgent repairs within 5 working days. However, as the reason for the delay was due to damp it is not reasonable to expect that the repairs were completed within these targets. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and booked the repairs with the resident allowing sufficient time for the property to dry.
The landlord attended the property on 13 May 2020 to carry out the required works but it was discovered that it was still too damp to commence works. There were subsequently further delay as the resident needed to be decanted into a reasonable property due to her son’s disability. The resident was decanted on the 27 July 2020 and works were completed on the 16 August 2020. The landlord performed the repairs and aimed to do batch repairs with 20 working days, from the evidence provided by the landlord it was clear that there was a delay, but this was due to difficulties with the decant process. Once the resident was decanted from the property the landlord completed these repairs in line with its repairs process.
The resident raised another complaint on 17 August 2020 that the repairs to the property were not completed satisfactorily by the landlord. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 24 August 2020 to assess the issues in line with its repair’s timeline. It was determined that the resident would need to be decanted in order for the works to be completed. Rather than another temporary decant it was decided that a permanent decant would take place and the outstanding repairs at the property would not be completed until that time. Overall, the landlord attempted to complete the repairs in line with its repair’s timeframe, however due to circumstances outside of its control there were delays in the repairs being performed. Overall, there was no service failure in regard to the landlord completing repairs at the property.

Lack of PPE worn by contractors

The resident complained that there was an issue with the contractors not wearing PPE when performing works at the property. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage one and two complaint responses. The landlord appropriately investigated the matter and examined the contractor’s Covid-19 operating procedures. It suitably determined that whilst its operatives had been issued with PPE, an individual risk assessment was undertaken in relation to the property and it was reported that no-one in the household had any symptoms relating to COVID-19 and therefore operatives were not required to wear additional PPE. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and informed the resident that if she was uncomfortable with the contractors not wearing masks it could instruct them to do so, from the evidence provided it appears that the resident did not take the landlord up on the offer. Accordingly, the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the reports of lack of PPE worn by contractors.

The temporary decant process

The resident raised the proposal of a decant in her stage one complaint on 17 April 2020. Under the landlord’s tenancy policy, it would normally require the tenant to be decanted if essential facilities such as the bathroom cannot be used for a period of more than 24 hours. The landlord was advised by the contractors that the work would take approximately two working days to be completed. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and had a portable toilet delivered to the property to be used by the residents which negated the need for a decant. It was later discovered that the works would not be able to be performed within the two days previously advised and a decant would be required.
The landlord appropriately assisted the resident in making a temporary move to a motel in line with its tenancy policy. On 27 July 2020, the resident raised that the accommodation provided by the landlord was not approprate for her disabled son due to his mobility issues. The landlord raised that due to the current COVID- 19 pandemic there were limited hotel rooms available and that the room provided was easily accessible and had two interconnected rooms with separate bathrooms. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its tenancy policy in assisting the resident to find the most approprate accommodation available at the time. The landlord took into account the residents son’s disability and provided a room that was accessible and approprate for a short-term temporary decant.

The landlord’s complaints handling

Complaint One

At the time of the matters complained about, the landlord had a three-stage complaints procedure. This said the landlord would respond at stage one within 7 working days and at stages two and three within 15 working days. The landlord responded within the timescales at stages one and two. However, at stage three it should have responded to the resident’s request for escalation of 18 May 2020 by 8 June 2020; it did not respond at stage three until 23 June 2020 which was over two weeks after the timescale for a response. That delay was a service failure.

Complaint two

The documentation provided shows that the second stage one complaint by the resident was made on 17 August 2020 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 26 August 2019 in line with its complaint procedure. It is not clear from the documentation provided when the resident asked for escalation of her stage one complaint, however the landlord issued its response on 7 September 2020. Therefore, there appears to be no delay. There was no stage three response provided for this complaint and the landlord appears to have abided by its complaints process in regard to the second complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about:
1. A blocked drain at the property and CCTV Survey.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
1. Delays to repairs at the property.
2. Lack of PPE worn by contractors.
3. The resident’s request for a temporary decant.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take a resolution failed approach and comply with the recommendations of its contractors in performing the CCTV survey when advised.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy by delaying to the initial complaint at stage three which was not in line with the three-stage complaint procedure in place at the time.
It was acknowledged by the landlord that there was a delay in performing the repairs at the property due to the dampness and the need for further repairs. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident and attempted to minimise disruptions. There was further delay due to the landlord trying to find the resident an approprate decant property however due to limited availability it was not able to decant the resident causing further delays in the repairs process.
The landlord complied with government COVID-19 regulations and performed an individual risk assessment prior to the commencement of works at the property. It communicated with the resident that, if she was uncomfortable with the contractors not wearing masks, it could instruct them to use additional PPE.
The landlord appropriately assessed the need for a decant in line with its tenancy policy and it was suitably determined not to be necessary due to the small amount of time that the works were scheduled to take place and the supply of a portable toilet for the resident to use. The landlord correctly reassessed the need for a decant once contractors informed it that the works would take an extended period of time. The landlord assisted the resident in finding alternative accommodation in line with its tenancy policy for the duration of the works.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 comprising:
1. £250 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the complaint about a blocked drain at the property and CCTV survey.
2. £50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling failure.
The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made and any repairs completed.