Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110733)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110733

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 February 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 about:
1. The repairs service provided by the landlord.
2. The landlord’s actions in response to Occupational Therapist adaptations to the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a decant.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a one bedroom, second floor flat.
The resident’s representative makes the complaint on his behalf. For ease of reference the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
The resident confirms that that he has “severe mobility” and “mental health” issues which have been compounded by his living conditions.

Summary of events

On 26 January 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about “poor service and failure to repair and secure [the] property since December 2020”. The resident set out that the repair issues were in relation to the front entrance of the property, including poor insulation and the integrity of the “front pillar”. The resident stated that despite reporting the repairs to the landlord no action had been taken. Within his complaint the resident noted that he was “registered physically disabled with mental health issues”.
On 23 February 2021 the resident resubmitted his complaint as he had not had a response from the landlord, despite receiving an acknowledgment confirming a response within five working days. Within his correspondence the resident confirmed that his complaint concerned the integrity of the front door, a pillar at the front of the property and the external support handrail. The resident explained that as a result of the outstanding repairs:
1. Vermin were able to enter the property.
2. He had incurred additional heating costs.
3. Occupational therapist recommended adaptations to the bathroom had been put on hold.
4. It had impacted his mental and physical health.
The resident concluded by confirming that he would like the landlord to acknowledge his complaint with a reference number, a named officer and for a complaint response to be provided within ten working days.
On 30 April 2021 the resident requested to escalate his complaint as the landlord had not responded to him. Within his request the resident reiterated his complaint. The resident also set out that he had requested a decant until the repairs and adaptations were completed as his living conditions were no longer acceptable, however the landlord had not responded. The resident concluded by confirming that he would like a survey report completed on the property to ensure that it was safe.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s record of the discussion documented that the resident reiterated that he was concerned regarding the integrity of the front door, the pillar and the handrail despite previous repairs by it. The record also documented that the resident was concerned that during the previous repairs the handle on the front door had been moved from the right to the left hand side which had made it difficult for him to get in or out of the property.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord opened by apologising for the delay in the provision of its response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Repairs were carried to the front entrance in 2020 and January 2021. Its records showed that despite the repairs the resident remained concerned and emailed it on 26 January 2021 and 23 February 2021 [incorrectly referenced as 1 March 2021 in its response] to express his discontent.
2. Following a repair visit in April 2021 it was recommended that a surveyor attend the property however this was not actioned. It explained that this was due to a lack of communication internally.
3. A surveyor attended the property on 8 June 2021, as a result of the resident’s escalation request. It set out that the surveyor confirmed that a number of repairs were required to address the front entrance including easing and adjusting the front door, reinstating the front door handle and repointing the pillar which was “no longer moving”. It noted that the surveyor had explained the repairs during the visit and the resident was “satisfied with this”. It confirmed that the repairs would be booked in directly with the resident in the next few days.
4. It was sorry for the delay in resolving the repair issues.
5. It would like to offer £350 compensation in respect of the complaint, comprising:
  1. £100 delay to resolve repairs.
  2. £100 repeated contact by the resident.
  3. £100 inconvenience.
  4. £50 delay outside service level targets.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate his complaint within twenty working days if he was not satisfied with its response.
On 4 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate the complaint. The resident set out that he would like to escalate the complaint because:
1. The landlord had failed to adhere to its complaint policy in responding to the complaint. He was also concerned that he had not been given a named contact to follow up his complaint.
2. The repairs to address the front entrance had not been completed. He confirmed that the only work which had been completed was filling with cement and sand. He advised that the attending operatives were unaware of the full scope of works agreed.
3. As a result of the outstanding repairs to the front entrance the adaptations were still on hold.
4. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord expected him to accept its offer of compensation prior to the repairs being completed. He noted that the landlord’s offer of compensation failed to include a sum for additional fuel consumption due to outstanding repairs to the front door.
5. The landlord had not responded or considered his request for a decant.
On 5 August 2021 the landlord responded setting out that it was unable to escalate the resident’s complaint as it was unable to locate a stage one response. The resident responded on the same day confirming his complaint reference. The resident reiterated that his complaint remained unresolved and his living conditions were deteriorating.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it was sorry that it had been unable to resolve his complaint at stage one and therefore it would be considered at stage two, with a response being issued by 27 September 2021. Within its correspondence the landlord apologised that it had previously advised the resident that he was unable to escalate his complaint as this was not correct.
On 5 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the landlord apologising that its stage two response would be been delayed.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. The landlord opened by apologising for the delay in providing its response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy. It explained that this was due to high volumes of customer contact.
2. Its Aids and Adaptations Team were aware of the proposed adaptation to the property from 10 February 2020 when the local authority (LA) asked for an asbestos survey. It confirmed that there had been a long delay between the survey being provided and the LA putting the works to tender. It also confirmed that the LA “felt that possible structural issues [relating to the pillar] could impede the [adaptations]”. It set out that the structural issues were passed to its Surveying Team in January 2021 however it had by that point already attended the property in December 2020 and early January 2021 to make the pillar secure.
3. Review of its repair records documented that it attended the property on multiple occasions in December 2020 and January 2020 to complete works to the front entrance, including the front door, the pillar and the external support handrail. It confirmed that it responded to the reported repairs in December 2020 and January 2021 in a timely manner.
4. Between January and April 2021 the resident raised new concerns over the front entrance. It confirmed that it attended in April 2021 and established that there was a “further problem with the [front] door not locking which was due to further movement”.
5. A surveyor attend the property on 8 June 2021. It confirmed that during the appointment the front door was lubricated as a temporary fix and an appointment was made for 29 June 2021 to complete repairs to the front door frame and threshold, in addition to the external support handrail and brickwork pointing.
6. During the appointment on 29 June 2021 the contractor confirmed that a replacement front door was needed to permanently resolve the issues. It confirmed that an appointment was scheduled for 20 September 2021 to fit the new door however no access was granted. It explained that the delay in providing a new front door was due to manufacturing which was beyond its control. It noted that the resident stated that he was not aware of the appointment on 20 September 2021, however its records indicated that a voicemail had been left. It confirmed that a new appointment to fit the door had been scheduled for 18 October 2021.
7. It had no evidence from its repairs team or the surveyor to suggest that the repair issues to the front entrance had caused the property to be cold. It confirmed that if the resident could provide evidence to the contrary it would reconsider the matter.
8. The resident was open to make a liability claim through its insurers in respect of his allegation that, due to the condition of the property, his health had deteriorated.
9. It was not its policy to provide named contacts for repairs or complaints as staff changes or absence could mean that direct contacts from residents could be missed. It acknowledged however it would have been appropriate to have provided a named contact for the resident at stage one in order to monitor the repairs. It confirmed that the Response Area Manager and Maintenance Surveyor would manage the remaining repair works at the property.
10. Following a review of the repairs records there was no reason to delay the adaptations due to the external repairs to the front entrance. It set out that it was however “apparent that communications between [itself] and the LA [had] been incomplete” which had “contributed to the additional delay in the LA progressing the adaptions”. It confirmed that the adaptations had been discussed with the LA during a meeting in September 2021 and it understood that works had recently commenced.
11. Its decant policy states that it “will only decant tenants in exceptional circumstances where the property is uninhabitable and/ or unsafe, or it is not possible to undertake the works with the tenant in-situ”. It stated that “there had been no reason to decant [the resident]… due to the external repairs”. It advised that it had agreed to decant the resident from the commencement of the adaptation works as it recognised that the washing and toilet facilitates would be disrupted.
12. In addition to the £350 compensation awarded at stage one it would like to award a further £400 compensation. It confirmed that the additional compensation comprised:
  1. £100 “impacted experienced”.
  2. £150 misdirection and communication issues.
  3. £100 repeatedly having to chase responses.
  4. £50 delay in responding to the complaint at stage two.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its final response.
On 13 October 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s final response. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that its stage two response was provided outside of its service standards. He stated that a response was only forthcoming as he was proactive in seeking a response.
2. Contactors had turned up at the property to start work on the adaptations, prior to the landlord’s stage two response, but he had not been contacted in advance about arranging a decant. He confirmed that temporary accommodation was arranged at the last minute.
3. He returned to the property in the evening on 8 October 2021 from the temporary accommodation as directed by the landlord, however the property “no longer had a toilet, wash basin, shower, taps and the flooring was clearly incomplete”. He confirmed that he was forced to “use plastic bags to relieve [himself]/ use the toilet” as further temporary accommodation could not be arranged as it was a weekend.
4. The feedback given by the surveyor during their visits “differed greatly from what was eventually recommended”.
The resident concluded by confirming that he would be referring the complaint to this Service for consideration.
In February 2022 following contact from this Service, advising the Ombudsman would be issuing a determination on the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that it would like to increase its compensation award by a further £200 “in recognition of [its] failure to acknowledge at stage one and [stage two] the additional impact the delays and unreasonable level of contact the tenant had to make due to their vulnerability”.
In February 2023 the resident wrote to this Service to provide an update on his complaint. The resident set out:
1. That the structural work to the front entrance remained “incomplete”.
2. The new front door did not have a “door knocker, a door chain, spy hole or door number”.
3. The security lights were damaged during the works and never repaired.
4. Due to damaged and missing bricks destroying the property rats were able to enter the property.

Assessment and findings

The repairs service provided by the landlord

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, the property. A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. As the repairs reported by the resident related to the structure and exterior of the property the landlord was obliged to investigate and to make good any issues identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property to demonstrate its response to the resident’s reports concerning the structure of the front entrance.
This Service notes the following while the complaint was live:
1. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2020 to report that the property was unsecure as he was unable to lock the front door. The landlord attended on 2 December to resolve the issue with the lock. The landlord noted “big crack down the outside wall seems to be pushing the doorframe out of line which is causing the door to be very stiff to close”.
2. The landlord attended the property on 21 December 2020 to “repair large cracks at the front of the property”. The landlord noted “have inspected – follow up needed due to wet conditions – booked for 6 January 2021”. The landlord set out that “two grabrails to front entrance door” were completed on 21 December 2020.
3. The landlord attended the property on 29 December 2020 following contact from the resident earlier that day to report that the front entrance was unstable due to worsening cracks which he believed could not wait until 6 January 2021. The landlord noted “resident not in, have moved grab rail off defective pillar”.
4. The landlord attended the property on 31 December 2020 following contact from the resident earlier that day reporting that the front door would not lock “as structure [was] moving”. The landlord noted “door can be locked – works booked in on 6 January 2021 to repair pillar”.
5. The landlord attended the property on 6 January 2021. From the notes the Ombudsman is not clear what works were completed, if any.
6. The landlord attended the property on 13 January 2021. The landlord noted “grinded out pointing, cement fixed Heli-fix bars…” and “stitched wall and front entry door column together, raked out and pointed – anti-slip paint will have to be done when weather is better; warmer and drier”.
7. The landlord attended the property on 8 April 2021 following a report from the resident that he was “unable to lock the front door” due to an issue with the pillar. The landlord noted “the problem with door not locking is due to where the brick pillar has moved which has had repairs in in the past to stop pillar moving – tenant would like surveyor to attend”.
8. On 27 April 2021 an internal note recorded “are we able to get a surveyor out to assess?”
9. The landlord raised several repairs on 29 June 2021, following a survey, to address the front entrance, including “repointing”, “supply and fix Heli-bars” and “remove existing rusty handrail to steps and replace with Kee-Klamp handrail”. The landlord noted that an appointment had been scheduled for 6 July 2021 to complete the works.
10. On 6 July 2021 the landlord recorded that a new front door was needed to resolve the issues with the front entrance.
11. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 July 2021 to explain that the new front door could not be fitted in August 2021 due to a delay in manufacturing.
12. The landlord noted on 25 August 2021 that it left a voice message with the resident confirming an appointment on 20 September 2021 to fit the new front door.
13. The landlord attended the property on 20 September 2021 to fit the new front door, however the resident advised that he was not available as he was not aware of the appointment.
14. The landlord attended the property on 18 October 2021 to fit the new front door. The landlord noted “renewed front entrance door and frame composite, and repointed any brickwork to columns”.
The records show that between December 2020 and early January 2021 the landlord was proactive in responding to the resident’s reports concerning the front entrance as it attended the property on multiple occasions to inspect and carry out repairs to make good. The Ombudsman has not identified any unreasonable delays to appointments or failed attendances during this period.
The evidence shows that the resident complained to the landlord in late January and February 2021 following the repair on 13 January 2021. Despite the resident’s complaints there is no evidence to show that the landlord took action to respond to the resident’s concerns at that time. This is unsatisfactory. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have used the resident’s contact to initiate a follow up appointment to determine if the repairs it had previously undertaken had been effective.
The landlord next attended the property following a repairs request from the resident in April 2021, where it was noted that a surveyor should attend to inspect the front entrance. Despite the landlord noting that a surveyor should attend, there is no evidence that this was actioned at that time. This is unsatisfactory as it was an action that the landlord had identified in order to put things right. In responding to the complaint it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failing in this regard.
The evidence shows that a survey was completed on 8 June 2021, in response to the resident’s escalated complaint dated 30 April 2021. While the survey was appropriate, it was unsatisfactory that the resident was required to escalate the complaint in order for it to be arranged and undertaken.
The landlord’s records indicate that the repairs identified following the survey were completed on 18 October 2021, following the installation of a new front door and repointing of the surrounding brickwork. While the time taken to complete the works following the survey were protracted, the Ombudsman accepts that this was primarily due to delays in manufacturing the new front door, which was outside of the landlord’s control and the resident’s unavailability for installation on 20 September 2021.
An internal email by the landlord dated 20 October 2021 confirmed that the new front door and pillar were post inspected on 19 October 2021 with only minor snagging work identified as necessary. The email also recorded that the resident had reported that he was “very pleased with the new front door and [had] commented on the neatness of the re-pointing”. It was appropriate that the landlord post inspected the works due to the length of time the matter had been on-going and to satisfy itself, and the resident, that the repairs had resolved the issues with the front entrance.
While the Ombudsman is satisfied that by October 2021 the landlord had taken steps to address, resolve and repair the issues with the property’s front entrance, as raised by the resident, the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of the case. This is because the chronology demonstrates missed opportunities by the landlord to initiate follow up investigations in January and February 2021, and it failed to instruct a surveyor in April 2021 as it committed to doing so. These omissions will have resulted in uncertainty and distress to the resident, and a protracted outcome in respect of the repairs.
In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged that its overall handling of the repairs had not always been satisfactory. The landlord therefore apologised and offered £650 compensation for impact, communication, delays and inconvenience. The landlord later increased its offer by a further £200 in February 2022, following a review of the complaint after it had been referred to the Ombudsman, in recognition of the resident’s vulnerability; making its total offer of compensation £850.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it acknowledged the service failure and the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it may award discretionary compensation where it has made mistakes. As the landlord had identified that a service failure had occurred in relation to its handling of the repairs, it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that awards of £700 and above are appropriate “when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s final award of compensation was proportionate in recognition of the significant impact on the resident in respect of its handling of the repairs.
In response to the resident’s request for compensation for extra heating the landlord confirmed that it was happy to assess the request on receipt of evidence to reflect additional expenditure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable response to the resident’s request, as the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to award compensation for a quantifiable loss where there was no evidence to support the reported loss.
The Ombudsman notes that in the resident’s most recent update to this Service he sets out that there are outstanding repair issues to the front entrance which have not been addressed by the landlord. Due to the length of time which has passed since the landlord’s final response, and that these are concerns that have arisen since the landlord issued its final complaint response, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the resident’s current concerns regarding the property’s front entrance. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in order to assist in bringing the matter to a close.

The landlord’s actions in response to Occupational Therapist adaptations to the property

As part of his complaint the resident suggested that, as a result of the time taken by the landlord to initiate and complete repairs to the property’s front entrance, it delayed the installation of bathroom adaptations from 2020 until autumn 2021.
The evidence shows that it was the landlord’s position that it was not necessary for the LA to delay the bathroom adaptations due to works connected to the front entrance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have liaised with the LA regarding the adaptations on receipt of the resident’s concerns in early 2021 in order to assist in progressing the adaptations. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory as the adaptations were alterations which were recommended to make it safer and easier for the resident to use the property’s bathroom, and which had been made following an assessment on his mobility.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a decant

From review of the landlord’s repair records the Ombudsman can see that the resident first requested a decant in December 2020. The Ombudsman cannot however see that the landlord responded to the resident’s request until its stage two response in October 2021. This is a period of approximately ten months. This is unsatisfactory. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s request in December 2020, to explain if his circumstances warranted a decant under its policy, and if not, why not. This would also have been appropriate to provide reassurances to the resident regarding the integrity of the property’s front entrance.
Within the landlord’s stage two response the landlord confirmed that the resident would be offered a decant during the adaptation works. This was appropriate as it recognised that the resident would be left without a working bathroom for an extended period of time.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was in temporary accommodation from 29 September 2021 until 8 October 2021. The records further show that the decant was ended prior to the adaptions being completed and therefore the resident returned to the property when it did not have working facilities. This is unacceptable and will have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the date which the decant ended coincides with the date of the landlord’s stage two response and therefore the full circumstances of the decant were not considered as part of the response. This indicates to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not thoroughly consider the complaint while it was live as it failed to capture that the decant had occurred or was already in progress when the response was issued. This is unsatisfactory and meant that the response was unable to reflect the true circumstances of the resident’s situation.
The evidence confirms that the adaptations were concluded on 15 October 2021 which is one week after the resident returned to the property on 8 October 2021. The Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which suggests that the landlord considered a second decant on learning that the adaptations were not complete upon the resident’s return to the property. This is unsatisfactory given the nature of the works and the impact on the resident while the works were not finished.
The Ombudsman has identified an internal email by the landlord dated 14 October 2021 in which it discusses offering the resident £100 compensation in respect of its early termination of the temporary accommodation, however it is not clear if the offer was made to the resident or not. Notwithstanding, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation discussed by the landlord is not reflective of the circumstances of the complaint and the situation the resident found himself in, through no fault of his own.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The chronology of the complaint shows that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory as it missed complaint requests from the resident, its responses were provided outside of its service standards and it incorrectly advised the resident that he was unable to escalate his complaint. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unacceptable as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage.
Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory and it therefore apologised and offered a total of £100 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to reflect its poor handling of the complaint and the impact on the resident.
In response to the resident’s assertion that his health had been adversely affected as a result of its handling of the repairs the landlord advised him that he was open to make a liability claim through its insurers. Only a court can make a legally binding decision as to whether a resident’s health has been adversely affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions. However a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities and the cumulative impact of any failings on them when responding to complaints. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to make a claim. It was also reasonable as, in responding to the complaint, the landlord did consider ‘impact’ on the resident.
It was appropriate that, as part of its stage two response, the landlord explained why it was its practice to not provide named officers as part of its complaint procedure. It was also appropriate that the landlord recognised, and therefore apologised, that it would have been best practice for it to have deviated from procedure in the resident’s case in light of his vulnerabilities.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the repairs service provided by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the Occupational Therapist adaptations to the property..
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a decant.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The repairs service provided by the landlord

The landlord acknowledged and awarded proportionate compensation in recognition that there were shortfalls in the repairs service it provided to the resident. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.

The landlord’s actions in response to Occupational Therapist adaptations to the property

The landlord failed to recognise that it was not proactive in relation to the recommended adaptations by actively liaising with the LA to ensure works were being progressed, and therefore that the resident was adversely impacted by its inaction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a decant

The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s request for a decant following his request in December 2020.

The landlord’s handling of the decant to accommodate the adaptations was unsatisfactory as it ended the resident’s temporary accommodation prior to the works being completed. This resulted in the resident returning to the property which did not have working facilities which would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to him. Further there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord considered a second decant on learning that the adaptations were not complete, which would have been appropriate given the nature of the works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord acknowledged and awarded compensation in respect of the shortfalls in the handling of the resident’s complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1650 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this determination. This figure includes the landlord’s previous offer of £950 and an additional £700 comprising:
1. £250 for the failure to provide a proactive response to assist progression of the adaptations.
2. £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s request for a decant.
3. £250 for terminating the resident’s decant prior to the completion of the adaptations.
4. £100 for complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should arrange an appointment with the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, in order to inspect the front entrance following the concerns he raised to the Ombudsman. Following the inspection the landlord should report back to the resident within two weeks detailing the outcome and a plan for any further repairs identified.
The landlord to review its process when it receives Occupational Therapist recommendations for adaptations to properties, to ensure that:
1. There is clear communication and appropriate liaison with the relevant local authority to progress adaptations.
2. Residents are kept updated as to plans and schedules of work.
The landlord should ensure that it responds to complaints in line with its published timescales to ensure an effective complaint handling procedure for its residents.