Your Housing Group Limited (202414685)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414685

Your Housing Group Limited

31 July 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Water ingress affecting the condition of the property and repairs required.
    2. Additional fence repairs.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.  

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her partner and daughter. The resident has vulnerabilities, and her daughter has a mental health condition.
  2. On 4 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident said:
    1. She waited over 12 months for someone to attend repairs for water ingress and the front of her property. The door and windows were rotten and letting water in, damaging her flooring. She had woodlice and mould in the porch area.
    2. The fence was not made good as promised following repairs in the summer of 2022.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 11 December 2023 and recorded that repairs to the porch area were needed, but the resident wanted all windows repaired.
  4. The landlord discussed with the resident her concerns on 3 January 2024. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s complaint on this date and said it would respond by 17 January 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 February 2024 and said:
    1. On 11 August 2022 it raised repairs to the fence. It regretted that works were not completed in full. However, during the surveyor’s inspection of 11 December 2023 it found the fence had been built. But the feather boarding for the inside of the fence was incomplete. It raised a repair for this to be attended to on 27 March 2024.
    2. It had records of an appointment on 14 December 2022 for water ingress from facias around the front porch area. This was attended on 29 August 2023 but the contractor said a joiner was required and requested a follow-on appointment.
    3. On 11 December 2023 a further appointment was attended for water ingress and an inspector was required to assess the door area. A surveyor attended the property (on 25 January 2024) and found the windowsill at the sides of the front door had started to rot and was letting water in. Repairs were recommended to this area and were booked for 27 March 2024.
    4. The surveyor found the floor was not in need of repair and clarified it did not offer replacement flooring. However, it had contacted its insurance team and provided the surveyor’s photographs to assist the resident with a potential insurance claim.
    5. The surveyor also found that the external rear door needed repair, including the bottom of the sill and around the frame. This was also booked for 27 March 2024.
    6. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it had taken steps to ensure it learns from the resident’s experience and improve its service.
    7. It awarded £200 in compensation made up of:
      1. £50 for inconvenience.
      2. £50 for service failure.
      3. £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
      4. £50 for time and trouble.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 February 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said:
    1. She wanted to know the date that fence repairs should have been completed. She told the landlord it should have re-raised the works.
    2. The surveyor arrived late and this made her late for a meeting. This was not included in the landlord’s complaint response. She also said the landlord did not include a response about mould caused by water ingress. She said she had raised water ingress from facias approximately 8 years ago.
    3. She believed repairs to other windowsills and frames were needed.
    4. The surveyor did not test the flooring which was warped. She expected it to be replaced.
    5. The compensation would not cover her loss of earnings.
    6. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge her complaint escalation.
  6. The resident chased the landlord on 12 March 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 14 March 2024. The landlord said it would respond by 15 April 2024. The resident responded on the same day asking why the landlord still had a month to respond. On 27 March 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the contractor that was due to arrive to carry out repairs arrived earlier than the scheduled afternoon appointment slot. She also said she had not heard from the insurance team. In a separate email she also requested someone took ownership of her concerns.
  7. The landlord called the resident on 28 March 2024. The resident then emailed the landlord on 5 April 2024 chasing an update. The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 April 2024 and she said she did not want to claim via her own contents insurance. She felt the landlord was liable. She called the landlord on 12 April 2024 and the landlord said it would inspect the resident’s property at 2pm on this date to assess works. It also extended its stage 2 complaint response deadline to 22 April 2024. Additionally, it told her about claiming via its liability insurance.
  8. On 22 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
    1. It attended on 11 December 2023 and it apologised for not arranging a follow-on appointment until it carried out a stock condition survey (on 25 January 2024). This was arranged as it had not completed a stock review since 2008.
    2. The surveyor did not find the door required replacement, but the sills around the glass of the porch area and the rear external door required repair.
    3. The surveyor had taken pictures of the flooring and noted minor damage, however this was something the resident needed to claim via her contents insurance. Or she could claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. It apologised for the delay in relaying this to its insurance team. Its insurance team had sent her the relevant documents to claim on 16 April 2024.
    4. Notes from the inspection of December 2023 did not mention any damage to the flooring.
    5. The visit of 27 March 2024 was to scope the works required to the property but the resident was not at home. Its contractor had attended at 12.58pm, although its afternoon appointments start from 1pm. It said the visit was not to complete any works, but to scope and measure. This was competed on 12 April 2024 instead.
    6. Not all window frames needed to be repaired. Following its survey of the property it noted that the paint on the window frames were flaking and would require sanding and painting. This would form part of the cyclical repairs programme. However, it could not provide a date but said this maybe in a few years.
    7. No additional fence work would take place as it was not its policy to ensure fencing matches.
    8. Its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were both delayed. At stage 1 it needed to complete the stock condition survey. It had also been creating a new complaints team, recruiting and providing training to its staff. It was regretful that this affected complaint response times, and it was now ensuring complaints are recorded within 5 working days.
    9. On 4 June 2024 it would complete repairs to the sills around the glass in the front porch and the rear external door.
    10. It was increasing its compensation offer to the resident from £200. The amount it said it was adding was:
      1. £25 for the delay in escalating the stage 1 complaint response.
      2. £50 for its delay in actioning a follow-up inspection after its December 2023 inspection.  

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. On 29 April 2024 the landlord re-sent the resident its insurance claim forms. On 4 June 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord saying its contractor unexpectedly arrived to attend the property. The landlord replied on the same day saying it was to address repairs to the front porch and rear external door as noted in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The resident referred her complaint to us on 10 July 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and lack of action. She told us that she experienced water ingress and it has damaged her flooring. The landlord had not completed repairs on 4 June 2024.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 July 2024 booking an appointment to complete the repairs to the front porch area and the rear external door on 9 September 2024. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 9 September 2024 apologising that its contractor could not attend due to absence. The landlord re-arranged the appointment for 16 October 2024. The contractor attended on 16 October 2024 and completed the repairs that were previously scheduled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We have reviewed the resident’s complaint of 4 December 2023, her escalation of 29 February 2024, and the issues subsequently referred to us.
  2. The resident told us that water ingress and repair reports date back to 2014. Although we acknowledge the resident made multiple reports and service enquiries, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach conclusions on the events. As above, the evidence shows the resident first submitted a formal complaint about these matters on 4 December 2023. We consider a reasonable period to be within 12 months of the matters arising, so we can look at issues from 4 December 2022. However, events prior will not form part of this assessment.
  3. Additionally, any matters that have not progressed through the full 2–stage complaint process fall outside the scope of this investigation.
  4. Further, the resident has said the water ingress had caused damage to her flooring, and she wants to be reimbursed for loss of earnings. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim if she has not done so already. We would also not be able to award financial redress for loss of income in the way that a court or insurance company would. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wants to pursue these matters.

Water ingress and repairs

  1. We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  3. The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will repair and maintain:
    1. The exterior walls, doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords, and window frames.
    2. The interior walls, floors, ceilings, doors, door frames, door hinges, and skirting boards.
  4. The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out timescales for:
    1. Emergency repairs which it aims to attend within either 4 hours (for vulnerable residents) or 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs which are to be attended within 5 working days.
    3. Reactive repairs which can be booked in at mutually convenient times, but it states routine repairs are to be completed within 28 calendar days.
    4. Pre-inspection appointments which are to be completed within 14 calendar days prior to a repair appointment. It says this is for circumstances where the scope of the repair is either unknown or cannot be diagnosed with the information it has.
  5. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it should complete pre-inspections within 14 days and routine repairs within 28 days. Therefore, it would have had until 25 January 2023 to address the water ingress issues.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord was aware the resident was facing issues with water ingress on 14 December 2022. There is no evidence it had taken any action until 29 August 2023. However, the landlord said it needed to arrange a joiner to address the repairs to the front door. Therefore, no repairs were completed by the landlord at that stage. The landlord should have pre-inspected the property by 28 December 2022. Its first attendance was not until more than 8 months after. By not doing so earlier, it failed to identify the works required in line with its Repairs Policy.
  7. There is no evidence the landlord was proactive in managing the repairs and it did not re-attended the property until 11 December 2023. From this point, the evidence indicates it took:
    1. 45 days to carry out an inspection regarding the resident’s windows and porch area.
    2. 62 days to arrange repairs after its inception to the windowsills by the side of the front door.
  8. The above demonstrates the landlord inappropriately exceeded its Repairs Policy timescales and as of 27 March 2024, repairs were still incomplete. The evidence shows the repairs were not rearranged by the landlord. Instead, the landlord opted to inspect the property again on 12 April 2024. The landlord’s communication about this was poor. It is clear the resident expended time and trouble chasing the matter and did not have an update as of 5 April 2024. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  9. At that stage there was a lack of urgency demonstrated by the landlord in trying to resolve matters for the resident. She had told the landlord on 29 January 2024 that her floor should be replaced and on 16 February 2024 that she wanted to submit a claim. It is evident she was experiencing distress and inconvenience due to the condition of her property.
  10. It was not until 12 April 2024 that the resident was contacted by the landlord about arranging another inspection for the same day. There is no evidence that prior to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response that it explained why it needed to inspect the property again. This was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord did confirm to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it wanted to scope the works and measure. This was also to ensure everything could be completed at the same time, and to inspect the flooring. This was a conflicting account of events by the landlord from its prior stage 1 complaint response and its communication on 14 February 2024. Previous correspondence from the landlord told the resident it would action repairs on 27 March 2024, not measure and scope. Given that the landlord’s Repairs Policy states it adopts a right first-time ethos, this was inappropriate.
  12. In the circumstances, the landlord was already overdue to repair the external rear door and sills of the property. By not adhering to its right first-time approach, the resident experienced delays, which caused her inconvenience. This also further demonstrated that the landlord’s communication was unclear.
  13. Further, the landlord told the resident in its final response that its contractor arrived at 12.58pm. The landlord said its afternoon appointment slot starts from 1pm so its contractor was early by 2 minutes. Its Repairs Policy states contractors would remain at the property for 15 minutes and try to contact the resident. From the evidence provided the landlord’s contractor’s arrival at 12.58pm was reasonable. However, there is no evidence to substantiate its contractor tried to contact the resident and waited 15 minutes at the property. As such, this was inappropriate.
  14. While we appreciate the resident said all her windows were rotten, the landlord had surveyed the property on 25 January 2024 and assessed the conditions of the windows again on 12 April 2024. It is reasonable for landlords to rely on the professional opinion of its staff.
  15. We also acknowledge the resident said she was experiencing woodlice and mould in her complaint submission to the landlord. During the landlord’s inspections from December 2023 until 12 April 2024 it had not found the presence of mould or woodlice. However, this was not communicated to the resident. We have elaborated on this below in consideration of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  16. It was reasonable the landlord confirmed to the resident in its final response that not all windows would be repaired. The landlord advised the windows fell under a cyclical programme of works where it would sand and repaint the windows. While this alone would not constitute a failure, the landlord said it could not confirm dates to the resident. This was unreasonable in the circumstances as even though the landlord conducted a stock condition survey of the property, it did not provide timeframes. By not providing a timeframe, it missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations. This further demonstrates the landlord’s poor communication.
  17. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it would not replace her flooring. By the landlord’s final response, it had confirmed to the resident that she could claim via her own contents insurance for damage to the flooring. The landlord also told the resident she could submit a claim to the landlord’s liability insurance. The landlord apologised for a delay in relaying the resident’s concerns of damaged flooring to its own insurance team. However, we can see that on 16 April 2024 it sent the resident the relevant insurance documents. Ultimately, this response was reasonable by the landlord, and it explained its position on the matter.
  18. In the landlord’s final response it committed to completing repairs it had raised for the sills around the glass in the front porch, and the rear external door by 4 June 2024. However, the evidence shows the issues continued until 16 October 2024. This was inappropriate action by the landlord. This meant the resident experienced a delay of 134 days beyond the 4 June 2024 date it committed to. It is clear it consistently failed to adhere to its Repairs Policy timescales. Also this evidenced it was not learning from the complaint.
  19. Overall, the landlord’s inaction from December 2022 until December 2023 was inappropriate. Despite attending the property on 6 occasions between December 2022 and June 2024, repairs it had identified were not completed until 16 October 2024. We acknowledge the landlord identified some of its errors during its internal complaints procedure. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said it would learn from the resident’s complaint to improve its service. This was vague and there was no learning identified in its final response, despite identifying further errors.
  20. Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The Remedies Guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment. In the circumstances, detriment to the resident continued after the landlord’s final response. Considering the above, we do not find the landlord’s offer of £200 was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident from December 2022 until 16 October 2024.
  21. As such, we make a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about water ingress affecting the property’s condition and repairs required. This is due to the prolonged delays, distress, and inconvenience. This is also due to the landlord’s poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble expended in trying to resolve the issue.
  22. In this investigation we have considered the landlord’s response after the resident again reported water ingress issues in December 2022. we have considered the resident experienced water ingress issues from December 2022. The landlord’s inspections did not follow its right first-time approach. Additionally, there was no urgency to complete the repairs despite it being known to the landlord that repairs were overdue.
  23. We have also considered the frequency of the resident chasing action from the landlord increased after she submitted her complaint in December 2023. It is clear the resident expended more time and trouble from the time of her escalation request (29 February 2024) onwards.
  24. Due to the landlord’s inactions and the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced, the landlord is required to pay the resident a total of £550. This is made up of:
    1. The £200 as offered in the landlord’s final response of 22 April 2024. This was for its handling of water ingress and associated repairs.
    2. An additional £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the overall delay in repair to address water ingress, and its poor communication.
  25. The £550 compensation is in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. It reflects the detriment to the resident and the delayed repairs to address water ingress issues for nearly 21 months.

Fence repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord is also responsible for repairing the common parts. It states it will keep the decoration of the outside of the resident’s home and communal areas in reasonable repair.
  2. The evidence shows that on 4 December 2023 the resident put the landlord on notice that she expected further repairs to the fencing. Under the landlord’s Repairs Policy, it should have arranged an inspection by 14 calendar days. The first instance the landlord contacted the resident about arranging an inspection was 18 January 2024. It was not until 25 January 2024 the landlord inspected the fencing, which was 52 calendar days after it was put on notice. This exceeded its policy by 38 calendar days, which was inappropriate.
  3. It was not until 14 February 2024 that the resident was advised about next steps regarding the fence. The landlord told the resident it had arranged for fence repairs to take place on 27 March 2024. This was also confirmed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. As above, the appointment of 27 March 2024 did not take place. However, despite the landlord’s previous commitment to repair, it revised its position on 12 April 2024.
  4. There is no evidence that at that stage, the landlord communicated to the resident why it chose to carry out a second inspection. This was unreasonable, as the landlord had the opportunity to clearly communicate to the resident why the option to repair was not progressed.
  5. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service and assists landlord’s in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. 
  6. The landlord explained its position on why it would not carry out further repairs to the fencing in its final response. Following the inspection of 12 April 2024 it confirmed the fencing was in good condition and it said it was not obliged to ensure fencing matches. However, this conflicted with the information provided in its stage 1 complaint response, where it said repairs to the fencing were not completed in full. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord. It should have been able to better manage the resident’s expectations from her communication on 4 December 2023 and clarified that it considered repairs to the fence were completed.
  7. Ultimately, the landlord apologised for its communication error and misleading the resident on it carrying out repairs to the fence. While this was positive, the landlord’s apology did not go far enough in putting things right. The landlord also failed to identify any learning from this aspect of the complaint. While we acknowledge the resident felt that additional fence repairs were needed prior to December 2023, there is no evidence this was guaranteed by the landlord. However, we acknowledged its miscommunication raised the resident’s expectations.
  8. As such, we make a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about additional fence repairs. This is due to the failure to manage the resident’s expectations, its poor record keeping, and the lack of learning identified.
  9. In order to put things right, we have considered the landlord’s Compensation Policy which states it will pay compensation for poor communication. We have also considered our Remedies Guidance which suggests payments of £50 for service failures which have not been put right by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 in compensation due to the miscommunication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations. It is also ordered to carry out a case review to identify learning from the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy (complaints policy) in operation at that time said it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of recording it. It would then provide its complaint response within 10 working days. If required, it stated it would write to the customer to advise of the delay and ensure its response is no later than an additional 10 working days.
  2. The evidence shows the resident submitted her complaint on 4 December 2023. However, it was not acknowledged by the landlord until 3 January 2024, which was 19 working days after. This meant the landlord exceeded the target in its complaints policy by 14 working days, which was inappropriate.
  3. Following this, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was not sent until 20 February 2024. This was 34 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It was outside its complaints policy timescales by 24 working days. There is no evidence it wrote to the landlord about extending its response in line with its policy either, which was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord could also write to the resident about delays to its stage 2 complaint response and extend by an additional 10 working days.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 February 2024. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, a stage 2 complaint response would have been due by 28 March 2024. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 22 April 2024. This was 36 working days after the resident had asked to escalate her complaint, which was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy did not state that it acknowledges complaint escalations. However, the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation on 14 March 2024 and said it would respond by 15 April 2024. While this was inconsistent with the landlord’s complaints policy, it was following the resident’s request as she had asked it to acknowledge her complaint escalation. However, its timeliness of acknowledging the escalation was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 12 April 2024 explaining a delay to its response and extended the response deadline until 22 April 2024. While the extension was 10 working days, the stage 2 complaint response was already overdue. Therefore, it was not reasonable for the landlord to delay its response further.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not clearly set out the total remedy offered. The landlord incorrectly said it was awarding an additional £100 at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. It also incorrectly stated that this would have brought the total compensation offered to “£2 [sic]”. However, the additional amount offered at stage 2 was £75 and the total amount offered at stage 1 was £200. Therefore, a total of £275. This alone would not constitute a service failure.
  9. The landlord acknowledged delays during its internal complaints procedure. The landlord attempted to put things right by apportioning £75 in compensation for its complaint handling failings. The landlord had also identified some learning from its complaint handling process. The landlord said it had recruited and trained its staff, to improve its service delivery and was now recording complaints within 5 working days.
  10. While this was positive, as above, the landlord failed to include a response about the resident’s concerns of mould due to water ingress. This formed part of her original complaint submission and was re-raised in the resident’s complaint escalation of 29 February 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy commits to completing a full investigation to the initial complaint. Therefore, it was not appropriate that a response to mould concerns was omitted. 
  11. Overall, the landlord had identified some of its errors. However, it had not identified the lack of consideration to the resident’s concerns of mould. This demonstrated the landlord was not taking the resident’s complaint aspects seriously. If it were not for the landlord’s acknowledgment of errors, attempt to put things right with £75, and learning identified, we would have considered maladministration.
  12. The resident’s complaint journey was delayed by a total of 38 calendar days at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It was then delayed by 6 working days at stage 2. The landlord omitted a response to mould concerns. Therefore, these delays and omissions amount to a finding of service failure. In the circumstances, a total of £100 has been ordered for the complaint handling failings identified. This is made up of:
    1. £75 for the delay of 44 working days and the resident expending time and trouble. 
    2. £25 for the landlord’s failure to consider a response for the resident’s concerns about mould in the property from water ingress.
  13. The award of £100 is in line with our guidance on remedies where the landlord has not acknowledged all of its failings. As the resident has told us she continues to have concerns about mould in the property, an order has been made for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould assessment. However, no further orders have been made regarding its complaint handling, as the Code is now statutory.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about water ingress affecting the condition of the property and repairs required.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about additional fence repairs.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700 comprised of:
      1. £550 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident. As well as the poor communication and delays experienced for its handling of water ingress and associated repairs.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the miscommunication and mismanagement of the resident’s expectations regarding additional fence repairs.
      3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling delays and its failure to consider a response to the resident’s concerns of mould.
      4. If any of the £275 offered in its stage 2 complaint response has been paid, it can be deducted from the total of £700.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Conduct a case review and identify learning from the complaint with a view for repeat errors to not occur. This is to be shared with us.
    2. Carry out a damp and mould survey of the property. It is to document the presence of any mould and share its findings with us and the resident. If it identifies any issues, it is to establish if any further repairs are needed and provide a timeframe to complete repairs.
  3. The landlord must provide us evidence of compliance with the above orders.