One Housing Group Limited (202109886)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109886

One Housing Group Limited

17 January 2023

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property, and its handling of related repairs.
2. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association, and he has resided at the property, a one-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a low-rise block, since 2017.
It is relevant to note that the landlord has confirmed it does not own the building and leases it from the freeholder. Repairs and maintenance of the communal and external parts of the block are carried out on behalf of the freeholder by a management company (“the managing agent”).
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that, in relation to the “Repair of Structure and Exterior” of the building the landlord is responsible for keeping “the roof” in repair. This is in accordance with the implied obligations of the landlord under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s lease agreement with the freeholder states that the freeholder is responsible for maintaining and keeping in “good and substantial repair” the “Main Structure” of the building. The lease defines the “Main Structure” as meaning “the roof (including the roof void) and foundations of the Building”.
Section 7.1 of the landlord’s Compensation and Other Payments Procedure outlines that, under Section 96 of the Housing Act 1985, the landlord will pay “obligatory compensation” to tenants if it “fails to undertake a repair within a set timescale”, up to a maximum of £50.
Section 9 of the same procedures states “when repairs and maintenance works result in parts of a property being rendered unusable by the tenant, (the landlord) will refund a percentage of the rent back to the tenant”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s repairs policy or procedures.

Summary of Events

In March 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The landlord’s records do not contain details of the precise content of the complaint, or the precise date on which it was made. However, the records do note that the complaint regarded “ongoing floods” and a request for £2,000 compensation.
The landlord has shared its internal communication from the period of the complaint with this service. This correspondence shows that on 31 March 2021, it emailed the managing agent and requested it arrange an “urgent” inspection of the roof as “it appears the leak we reported in October 2019 has returned.” The landlord’s records show that the managing agent raised an order for a roofing contractor to attend the following day.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord provided a Stage One complaint response. It stated that it understood the complaint to be about “an ongoing roof leak which caused damage to the electrics in your property.” It also referred to a phone conversation the resident had the day before with its surveyor but did not provide further details of this. It noted that to resolve the complaint the resident wanted the roof leak to be fixed and to be awarded compensation for the partial loss of electrics in his property between February and June 2020. In its response, the landlord made the following findings:
1. Emergency repair orders had been raised to its out of hours service on 22 February 2020 and 8 April 2020 after the resident had reported a loss of electrics. The landlord noted that, in February 2020, the attending electrician “did not gain access” but spoke to the resident on the phone, who advised that the electrics were in “full working order”. In April 2020, the landlord noted the resident had reported a loss of electrics “again,” and that his consumer unit was “smelling.” The attending electrician reported that the “partial loss of electrics” was caused by a tripped ‘Residual-Current Device’, but that power was restored, and the consumer unit left “in safe working order.”
2. While the resident had reported a “loss of electrics in (his) kitchen and bathroom from February 2020 to June 2020,” the landlord advised its repair records indicated the resident had only reported “the two emergency jobs mentioned above during this time period.”
3. It apologised for the ongoing leak but advised that there were “ongoing discussions” with the third-party property managing agent who were “responsible for the structure of the building.” It advised it was seeking confirmation of when the property management company would attend the resident’s address to resolve the issue and would contact him by 15 April 2021 to provide an update.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint “due to the length of time it is taking to resolve the issue” and offered the resident £50 under the Right to Repair scheme and an additional £50 as a “gesture of goodwill for the stress and inconvenience” caused by the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day and advised that he rejected its offer and requested his complaint be escalated. He raised the following points:
1. He denied that any electrician had ever been denied access to his property as it was “not in anyone’s best interests to do so.”
2. He was in rent arrears due to losing his job as a result of taking “too many days off…from work to be on site” in order to allow access to various operatives who were investigating “5 different leaks…from November (2019) to June 2020.”
3. He would not accept any offer below what he had requested.
The landlord’s records show that contractors, apparently arranged by the managing agent, attended the building on 14 April 2021 to carry out a water test. An assessment was done on the “flat roof above (the) lift shaft to track and trace source of leak coming from roof” in the 4th floor communal loft area, although this may be a typing error and could be intended to refer to the lift area.
The contractor reported it carried out tests on “12 locations identified as possible failures to roof membrane and previous patch repairs” and, following these, recommended that all 12 locations “require repairing to ensure the leak is fully repaired.” They recommended that two coats of “liquid membrane patch repair or acryopol (a water-proofing product)” be applied and that a day to carry out the repairs should be scheduled. It is not clear what action the managing agent took following these recommendations.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord provided its Stage Two (Review) response and stated that it understood the complaint to be about “an ongoing roof leak which caused damage to the electrics in your property.” It also noted the further concerns raised by the resident in his complaint escalation request (referred to above in Paragraph 9). It noted the following findings:
1. It apologised that its surveyor did not update the resident by 15 April 2021, as the landlord had indicated within its Stage One response.
2. Following dialogue with the managing agent, the landlord had established that repairs to the building’s roof had taken place on 5 April 2021. It also clarified that repairs had originally been carried out to the roof in 2019 but that “this repair had failed once again in 2020,” causing leaks which affected the resident’s property and electrical supply.
3. The resident had reported that his electric sockets had tripped again in April 2021, which the landlord advised was likely caused by “the latest leak which was repaired on 5 April 2021.” It advised it would arrange for a “full electrical survey of your apartment to ensure this is not a wider issue.”
4. It thanked the resident for clarifying that he had not refused access to the electrician in April 2020 and noted that from the records it had reviewed “that is likely the case as it was not clear if the…reported no access was to your property or another.” It apologised for this.
5. The landlord also offered sympathy for the fact that “throughout 2020, most notably between February and May several contractors (sent by the managing agent) required access to your apartment often for lengthy periods of time” to investigate the reported roof leaks “and other repair investigations resulting from damages by the leak.”
6. It noted that, when the resident had raised unspecified concerns in 2019, staff from its Customer Service Centre had directed him to speak to the managing agent. It apologised for “not great customer service” and acknowledged it “should have assisted you…as one of our customers” despite the managing agent retaining responsibility for the overall repairs. It apologised for this and advised it had taken learning from the incident so it “does not occur again.”
7. However, while it offered sympathy to the resident over losing his job and reportedly falling into rent arrears as a result, it was “unable to agree with you that the sole reason for losing your job was because of this roof leak,” although it apologised if the resident felt it had not “demonstrated any empathy” towards him over the rent arrears.
8. By way of resolving the complaint, the landlord stated it would:
  1. conduct a full electrical survey of the resident’s property.
  2. replace a cylinder timer in two tanks.
  3. undertake decorative repairs to his bathroom.
9. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation totalling £349, consisting of £25 for poor customer service in 2019, £50 for not providing the promised updates following its Stage One response, and £224 (four weeks’ rent) to reflect “the impact” on him. It confirmed it would use its discretion to pay this to him directly, rather than offset any rent arrears.
On 28 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord following its complaint response and advised that he remained dissatisfied with its response. He also queried how it had calculated its “gesture of goodwill…of £224…the equivalent of 4 weeks rent.” He further provided a list of ten dates on which he had to provide access to the managing agents between November 2019 and April 2020, although he also stated this was not an exhaustive list. He also advised:
1. there was further “water ingression” on his bathroom ceiling which needed to be fixed.
2. his living room ceiling required repainting and one of his two hot water tanks required a new electric board.
3. all electrical switches needed testing as they still “occasionally” tripped and cut his power supply.
The landlord responded the following day and stated that the compensation amount had been calculated on the basis that the resdient had confirmed in a phone call that two weeks’ rent was £112. It advised it would re-consider “only” this aspect of the complaint if he provided a rent account statement showing a different rent charge.

Post Complaint

Following the conclusion of its complaints procedure, the landlord agreed to carry out a further review of its Stage Two response at the request of the resident. In correspondence that had not been seen by this Service at the time of the original determination, the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021. It advised it had “reviewed the compensation amount offered at stage 2” and had decided to increase its offer of compensation to £1000. It stated this was an increase of £500 and reflected the “high impact” caused by the length of time then resident had pursued a resolution and “the inconvenience this has caused you”. It also offered an apology and an update on outstanding works, advising that redecoration works were booked in for 17 December 2021 and repairs to two internal doors were scheduled to take place on 5 January 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Within his complaint, and subsequent correspondence with this Service, the resident stated that he lost a former job as a result of regularly being required to stay home and provide access to contractors investigating the source of the leak. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine if there was any causal link between the repair investigations carried out on behalf of the managing agent and the ending of the resident’s employment. While the landlord did address this point within its Stage Two complaint response, the Ombudsman has made no comment on this in this report. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter further, it is suggested he obtain further independent advice.
Additionally, it is of concern that the resident’s tenancy agreement does not reflect the position outlined by the landlord in its complaint responses and correspondence with this Service in relation to the repair/maintenance responsibility for the main structure of the building. The landlord has confirmed that the managing agent has this responsibility on behalf of the freeholder, whereas the tenancy agreement places this responsibility on the landlord. While it is not disputed in this case that the freeholder (and its managing agent) is responsible for maintenance of the building’s roof, it is nonetheless essential that it is clear how the landlord will fulfil its obligations as set out in the tenancy conditions as these terms form the basis of the landlord/tenant relationship. It is therefore recommended that the landlord review this issue and consider appropriate next steps to ensure clarity over repair/maintenance responsibility of the building within its tenancy agreements.
These steps could include reviewing its contractual and liaison arrangements with the freeholder and managing agent to ensure they are robust and that any repair issues reported by residents are addressed promptly and in line with the landlord’s repair obligations.
As noted within the Ombudsman’s March 2022 Spotlight report ‘Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents’, “landlords should have, or actively seek, clear service level agreements with managing agents and/or freeholders. Landlords should review their agreements to clarify roles and responsibilities for those buildings where the landlord itself is the leaseholder. They should then ensure an effective mechanism to clearly and accurately communicate this to residents, staff and contractors”. The landlord should therefore also ensure it had a clear process in place for escalating concerns where it appears that the managing agent is not fulfilling its repair and/or building maintenance obligations.
This investigation proceeded on the basis that the landlord’s position regarding its repair responsibilities is accurate, and it is noted this does not appear to be in disputed by any party. As such, it has been accepted that the managing agent, on behalf of the freeholder, has the overall responsibility to ensure the maintenance and repair of the main structure of the building, which includes the roof.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property, and its handling of related repairs

It is acknowledged that the landlord is not the freeholder of the building and, as set out in the terms of its lease, it is not responsible for the repair and maintenance of the “main structure” of the building, which includes the roof. However, as the resident’s contract for the property is with the landlord, not the freeholder, the Ombudsman would expect to see pro-active engagement by the landlord to raise the resident’s concerns regarding leaks from the roof and to pursue a resolution and outcome as part of its landlord/tenant obligations.
As noted above, landlord repair records indicate it was first aware of issues relating to roof leaks in or around March 2019. On 20 March 2019 a repair request was raised to “inspect roof and carry out any repairs required.” Further related repair orders were raised in July 2019 (“roof repair: bathroom, living and bedroom walls affected by roof leak, please inspect and remedy”) and in December 2019, when a plumber attending a neighbouring property following reports of a leak from the resident’s flat recommended that the “day team” carry out a roof inspection.
Evidence seen by this Service indicates the landlord responded appropriately to emergency reports made by the resident when he experienced leaks info his property, and emergency plumbers and electricians attended promptly, often out of hours. However, there is limited evidence that the landlord then proactively liaised with the freeholder’s managing agent to ensure that the cause of what appears to be recurring leaks from the roof were appropriately investigated and resolved. This is despite recommendations from attending operatives on more than one occasion for the issue to be investigated further by the “day team.”
While records show that the landlord contacted the managing agent on 31 March 2021 and advised that “the leak we reported in October 2019 has returned”, there is no similar evidence of the landlord contacting the managing agent following other reports received from the resident, including those responded to by its out of hours operatives in December 2019, February 2020, and April 2020. This is not appropriate and means that, after its initial attendances to the reported leaks, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord’s subsequent responses were reasonable.
While the landlord’s Stage One response acknowledged that there was at that time an “ongoing leak”, indicating an acceptance that the issue had been continuing for some time without resolution, the landlord merely advised there were “ongoing discussions” with the managing agent regarding the leak. Other than the email it sent the managing agent on 31 March 2021, this Service has not seen any evidence of what those discussions entailed or of any other representations the landlord made on the resident’s behalf regarding this or any previous leaks.
Aside from the landlord’s reference to the “ongoing leak”, within its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord noted that a repair completed by the managing agent in 2019 had “failed again in 2020.” Despite acknowledging that it was aware the repair issue had recurred at some point in the previous year, the landlord did not use its complaint responses to outline the steps it had taken to follow this up with the managing agent and ensure the leak was being dealt with.
Within the information seen by this investigation there is no evidence of the landlord proactively trying to manage the issue with the managing agent or otherwise acting in the resident’s interests at any point between the leak reported in December 2019 and its email of 31 March 2021, or of any attempt to provide him with updates regarding any proposed repairs or investigations due to be carried out by the managing agent. This was not appropriate, and the lack of updates and detailed information mean the resident would likely have been uncertain that his concerns regarding the leaks, and disruption these caused him, were being taken seriously by the landlord.
Regarding the most recent leak, as referred to above the landlord did contact the managing agent at the end of March 2021 and its repair records indicate the most recent call out from the resident had been on 21 February 2021. On this occasion an electrician had attended his property due to a reported loss of power following “water penetration.” The attending operative referred to a leak occurring two days previously and recommended “the day team to attend and inspect the roof.” However, there is no evidence the landlord made any further efforts to investigate the issue or speak to the managing agents before it emailed on 31 March, over five weeks later. This was not appropriate and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, amounts to an unreasonable delay by the landlord in drawing the matter to the managing agent’s attention.
Additionally, while this Service again acknowledges the landlord does not have responsibility for carrying out repairs to the roof and it would be reliant on receiving updates from the managing agent, there are concerns over conflicting information regarding repairs carried out in April 2021. In its Stage Two response the landlord advised the resident that repairs to the roof took place on 5 April 2021. This Service has not seen details of the repairs that were carried out and it would have been helpful, and an example of better communication, for the landlord to provide further information to the resident within its response.
However, following this, the landlord’s records indicate that the managing agents arranged for a further inspection to take place on 14 April 2021. In an inspection report shared with the landlord, contractors undertook water tests on twelve separate locations “identified as possible failures to roof membrane and previous patch repairs,” and recommended repairs to all twelve locations. Regardless of whether it had received the report by the time its Stage Two response was sent, it is of concern that the landlord did not refer to this in its response as it did not provide the resident with up-to-date information.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the repairs cited by the landlord on 5 April 2021 can be considered to have resolved the issue if a further report the following week identified the need for further roof repairs to be carried out in multiple locations. This is not appropriate and indicates the landlord was not fully aware of the status of the ongoing repair investigation and whether the matter had been fully resolved. This meant it was unable to act reasonably and provide the resident with accurate information and updates.
Outside of its complaint responses, there is no evidence within the landlord’s records of it contacting the resident with any updates regarding inspections or repairs being carried out by the managing agent. As the resident had no contractual relationship with the managing agent, as his landlord, the Ombudsman would have expected it to keep him in the loop regarding how the investigations and repairs were progressing. That it did not do so was not appropriate.
There were further failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident after it advised in its Stage One response it would provide him with an update in April 2021. As part of an effective dispute resolution process, and to show residents they are attempting to “put things right,” it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident it would provide him with an update. It was also good practice to provide him with a specific timescale for this to be delivered. However, it was not appropriate that it then failed to do so, as completing actions promised within complaint responses should be a cornerstone of a landlord’s dispute resolution principles. However, it is noted that the landlord acknowledged this failure within its Stage Two response and provided an apology and small offer of compensation. This was an appropriate response which showed the landlord had appropriately reviewed its actions during the complaint investigation.
The landlord then appears to have made similar failings following its Stage Two response. In its response, it outlined actions it would take to resolve the complaint, which included completing further repairs including replacing a cylinder timer in two water tanks and undertaking decorative repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
While it was reasonable the landlord identified appropriate steps for it to take as part of its complaint investigation, the resident has indicated to this Service that these actions are not yet completed. Landlord repair records, covering the period up to November 2021, do not clarify whether they have been actioned. However, the landlord has since provided evidence it wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 to advise that redecoration works were scheduled for the following day and repairs to internal doors at the property would take place in January 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord, having conducted a further review of its final complaint response, provided a further update regarding outstanding repairs and gave the resident a timeline for completion of the repairs.
It was also appropriate that the landlord, having conducted a review of its Stage Two response, used its discretion to increase the amount of compensation offered to the resident from £349 to £1000. This was a positive step for the landlord to take and showed its willingness to continue dialogue with the resident after the completion of its complaint procedure and showed an attempt to try and “put things right” in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
While it is of concern that there is insufficient evidence that other repairs set out in the Stage Two response were completed in a reasonable time, such as the replacement of a timer switch which was originally raised in July 2020, and there were other failings in how it handled its overall repair processes, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s increased offer of compensation, while falling short of the £1500 the resident had requested, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Post Complaint

It is also noted that as part of its investigation of the complaint, this Service contacted the landlord to clarify what repairs, if any, had been carried out by the managing agent/freeholder since the conclusion of the complaint procedure. On 20 July 2022, the landlord responded and advised that it “believed” some repairs had been carried out in 2021 but had no further details. It advised it would therefore contact the managing agent to seek conformation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was of further concern and reinforces the impression the landlord did not have a clear handle on the status of repairs carried out by the managing agent or those that remained outstanding. It therefore could not have been said to have acted appropriately at that time in relation to its responsibilities towards him as his landlord.
While it may be the case that the managing agent has not been forthcoming with information, the landlord has not put this forward this as a reason why it has not been able to provide details regarding any repairs carried out since April 2021. It may therefore be assumed that, in keeping with the other information provided during the investigation, the landlord has not proactively sought to work with the managing agent and keep itself updated regarding any repairs that have been carried out to the main structure of the building it leases from the freeholder.
This Service also notes that issues at the property remain, and the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2022 to confirm the freeholder of the building has ultimately requested vacant possession while structural repairs are completed. It is hoped that this resolves the situation at the property and that the landlord and freeholder keep the resident, and others affected, updated accordingly.

The amount of compensation offered by the landlord

In his complaint correspondence with the landlord, and with this Service, the resident has advised that he considers compensation of £1,500 would be the minimum required to satisfactorily resolve the complaint and reflect the impact the repair issues have had on him.
In its Stage One response, the landlord awarded the resident £50 under its Right to Repair policy and made an additional £50 “goodwill gesture”. However, while it was positive the landlord made this offer, this may have caused confusion and indicated the landlord was taking responsibility for a repair issue that it had otherwise advised fell under the remit of the freeholder and their managing agent.
After the resident submitted his complaint escalation request, it was positive that the landlord conducted a further review of the complaint, and it acted reasonably by deciding it should make a larger award of compensation. Having upheld his complaint, the landlord offered the resident £349, which it stated consisted of £25 for poor customer service, £50 under Right to Repair, £50 for failing to provide the update promised in its Stage One response and £224, the equivalent of four weeks’ rent, for the “impact” caused by the leaks.
However, the resident sought to clarify the amount offered by the landlord, pointing out that £224 did not reflect four weeks’ rent. The landlord responded by advising it based its calculation on information provided by the resident during a phone call, details of which this Service has not seen. It asked him to provide a copy of his rent statement to enable it to reassess its offer.
At the time of the original determination, this Service had not seen any further correspondence from the landlord, or evidence that it had considered the matter further, although there was also no evidence the resident had provided the information requested. In the Ombudsman’s original determination, it was found that the landlord did not treat the resident fairly by putting the onus on him to provide further information regarding his current rent. This was not appropriate, given that, as his landlord, it was to be assumed it would have been able to easily clarify the rent if currently charged him from its own records.
While it remains the case that this Service has not seen evidence the landlord responded to the resident regarding this particular query, and the landlord did not treat the resident fairly by failing to respond to him, following the Ombudsman’s original determination, the landlord has provided further information which demonstrates that it agreed to review the compensation it had offered the resident in its Stage Two complaint response. This information had not been provided to this Service by either the landlord or the resident during the original investigation.
Landlord records show it wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 and confirmed that, following its compensation review, it was now willing to offer £1000, which it stated the resident had asked to be credited to his rent account. In subsequent correspondence with this Service, the resident has confirmed that this money was paid into his rent account in December 2021.
In light of this new information, while there were still failings in how the landlord handled the repairs and responded to the resident’s earlier enquiries regarding how its compensation offer had been calculated, the Ombudsman is satisfied there was reasonable redress by the landlord in regard to the amount of compensation it offered and how it handled the resident’s request overall.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property and its handling of related repairs.
2. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord.

Reasons

Although the responsibility for investigating and resolving any defects with the roof of the building was not the landlord’s responsibility, it retained other responsibilities towards the tenant as part of its tenant/landlord relationship and there is insufficient evidence it fulfilled these.
Despite responding to the resident’s reports of leaks appropriately on an emergency basis, there is no evidence it sought to proactively work with the managing agent to ensure it resolved the issue, despite being fully aware of repeat issues which affected the resident and his property. As such it did not act in the resident’s best interests and allowed significant repair delays to occur.
The landlord also failed to complete actions proposed within its Stage One and Stage Two complaint responses. While it apologised for the failure to contact the resident as promised in its Stage One response, there is no evidence it has yet completed the repairs set out in its Stage Two response.
While the landlord appropriately offered further compensation in its Stage Two response, it did not provide clarification on how it reached the final amount it awarded and asked the resident to provide information it would have easily been able to obtain itself from its own tenancy records.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the responsibilities for maintenance of the building and take appropriate steps to ensure these are accurately reflected within any relevant occupancy agreements and/or policy documents and ensure it is upholding its contractual relationship with its residents. If one does not exist already, it should urgently seek a clear service level agreement with the managing agent and ensure there is an effective mechanism to communicate the agreement clearly and accurately to residents. It should also ensure there is a clear process in place for escalating concerns where it appears that the managing agent is not fulfilling its repair and/or building maintenance obligations.
The landlord should review its operational responses to service or repair requests in buildings it does not own to ensure they are effective. It should ensure the robust provision of interim support to its residents and the maintaining of accurate and easily accessible records. Where records are held or made on behalf of managing agents and/or freeholders, the landlord should endeavour to ensure these are provided either with copies or, or other information on, technical assessments, decisions, and any future plans.
The landlord should review the lessons learnt from this case, and the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on managing agents and set out an action plan for this building to ensure that it is delivering a high-quality housing management service to all residents in this building.
The landlord should review its contractual management arrangements for other properties where it is not the freeholder, including consideration of the recommendations as set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on managing agents.