GreenSquareAccord Limited (202113283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113283

GreenSquareAccord Limited

24 March 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of defects and repairs.
2. Handling of her requests for adaptations.
3. Complaint handling.
4. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of a two-bedroom house owned by the landlord which is a housing association. This report refers to both joint tenants as “the resident”. The resident moved into the property in August 2019 when the property was newly built. An adapted kitchen and ground floor shower room had been incorporated during the construction of the property. The resident has disabilities which meant the family were eligible to be allocated an adapted property.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and implied duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. It is also responsible for keeping installations including sanitary items, waste pipes and heating, in proper working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It says the landlord will consider the risks arising from the repair and any vulnerabilities of the customer when deciding if a repair is an emergency. It gives examples of types of repairs that would be considered an emergency which includes toilet blockages causing sewage to back up and where a toilet cannot be used and there is only one in the property. The repairs policy does not apply to defects reported on a new build property during the period the property is under the warranty of the developer.
The landlord’s post completion process says that developers will be given two opportunities to rectify defects after which the landlord can complete them in default. It says that a defect inspection will be carried out before the end of the warranty period and a certificate issued when all defects have been resolved.
Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord has a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments where a resident asks for them, including providing equipment and auxiliary aids. However, schedule 4 paragraph 2 of the act states that the removal or alteration of a physical feature is never a reasonable adjustment. The landlord’s website says that it may provide minor adaptations such as changing the height of electrical sockets but will make a decision on any requests in line with “budget and suitability”. It says that customers should contact their council’s occupational therapist if larger changes are needed.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy at the time of this complaint said it would respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within five working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy which provides for it to make payments as a gesture of goodwill. This includes payments in recognition of frustration and inconvenience caused if there are delays in resolving issues or poor communications with customers.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened. During lockdowns the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

Between 5 August 2019 and 16 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord at least 11 times to report numerous defects. During the period, the landlord raised 27 orders with the developer and a contractor for defects work relating to internal drainage issues, blockages and leaks, decorative finishes, joinery work and external drainage issues. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2019 saying that she had not heard from the developer regarding the outstanding works. On 13 September 2019, the landlord cancelled some of the defect orders outstanding with the developer. It placed new orders for this work and some additional jobs with a contractor. On 22 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord again saying that she had not heard anything from the developer regarding the outstanding work.
On 24 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord saying that the outstanding work had gone beyond the 28 day timescale and that the ground floor shower room was not usable which was causing issues. The evidence seen shows that the landlord understood that the resident wanted to make a “formal” complaint. The landlord contacted the developer the following day and told the resident that the developer would be in touch. On 29 October 2019 the resident confirmed to the landlord that the outstanding work had been arranged with the developer.
On 13 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident advising that the developer had reported it had attended to clear a blocked toilet caused by wet wipes being flushed down the toilet. The landlord said that the developer would not attend if the toilet became blocked again for the same reason.
On 8 June 2020 the resident reported that the toilet was blocked again and that the front door lock was faulty. The landlord raised defects orders with the developer. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 June 2020 to chase up outstanding work. The landlord replied that the only work outstanding was the blocked toilet, front door lock and refixing fence posts. It advised that she would be recharged if wet wipes were found to be the cause of the toilet blockage. It said that it would chase the contractor and asked the resident to let them know when the work was completed.
On 27 August 2020 the developer wrote to the resident advising that it had received end of defects inspection sheets. It said it would arrange an appointment to attend to nail pops in the ceilings and cracks in the walls and asked for clarification of the rooms affected. The resident replied that most rooms were affected and said that other work had also been reported. The developer subsequently advised that the nail pops and cracks would be attended on 7 to 9 October 2020. It said that work would be carried out under covid safe working practices in line with public health guidance and that complex work may be put on hold.
On 8 September 2020 the resident emailed the developer referring to a list of defects work it had sent her and saying that it had missed work needed to the bath panel. The developer replied saying it had added the panel onto the list of defect work to be completed on 7 to 9 October 2020.
Between 2 and 5 October 2020 the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding defects. The resident said that the bath panel was too small and had gaps around, some skirting boards were not level and had nails protruding, and that the walls were uneven.
On 20 November 2020 the resident’s occupational therapist contacted the landlord regarding the outstanding work and adaptations needed. The landlord asked the occupational therapist to email the details which she did the same day. The occupational therapist said that:
1. The staircase handrail was loose, and a second handrail needed due to the resident’s mobility issues.
2. The kitchen units had manual risers which the resident could not use due to their disability and automatic risers were needed.
3. Due to their obsessive-compulsive disorder, the resident was distressed and anxious about wires and pipes being visible under the sink.
4. An outside light was needed to reduce trip hazards for the resident.
5. The resident was not able to use the downstairs shower room for personal care needs. The shower water pressure was low and the wash basin too small to use except for hand washing. The resident was using the upstairs bathroom which meant he needed assistance with bathing. If he could use the shower room he could bathe independently.
The landlord responded to the occupational therapist on 2 December 2020 saying that it had arranged for the water pressure to be adjusted on 25 January 2021, and that it would refix the loose handrail and fit an additional rail. It said that it could not fund the automatic risers to adjust the kitchen units and that the boxing in of wires and pipes, installation of an outside light and fitting a bigger wash basin were not minor adaptations. It suggested that those works might be eligible for a disabled facilities grant.
On 14 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. She said that:
1. The adapted kitchen was not fit for purpose as it was too heavy for a disabled person to adjust manually. She asked the landlord to reconsider its position regarding fitting automatic risers.
2. The wash basin in the downstairs bathroom was too small to use for teeth brushing and face washing. The shower pressure was low but was being investigated on 25 January 2021.
3. The cracks and nail pops had been attended to in October 2020 but not all were completed. She was not satisfied with the work that had been done as the defects were still visible.
4. The banister at the top of the stairs was not level, and the landing skirting boards were not flush and had nails protruding. The wall on the staircase needed work.
5. The bath panel had been reported several times and previous repairs done were not satisfactory. The panel was too small, with gaps around and needed replacing. The silicone around the bath and floor was coming away, the bath plug hole was not level, one of the taps had deteriorated, and the boxing in behind the toilet and wash basin had been done in different materials.
6. Most of the internal door handles had marks on them.
7. There were two thermostats controlling the central heating which should control the upstairs and downstairs radiators separately. This was not the case and meant she could not control the heating temperatures effectively.
8. Someone had inspected the garden fence but she had not heard anything further and did not know what work was planned.
  1. The front porch was not level.
The landlord acknowledged the email the following day. It said that it had chased up the developer and asked the resident for clarification whether any of the issues raised in her email were connected to the defects previously reported to the developer. It said that it could not comment on the adaptations but would send the details on to the relevant team. On 29 January 2021 the resident sent the landlord further explanation of the work needed and photographs, including a photograph showing the gas meter and water softener located under the kitchen base units which obstructed the height from being adjusted.
On 2 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord saying that the wash basin in the downstairs shower room had been replaced but she was not happy with the work. She said that a wall tile had been cracked during the work and filled with silicone. The resident sent photographs of the tile and of a gap around a bedroom door frame.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 February 2021 saying that an operative had attended but was unable to paint her walls as they needed plastering. She said that a plasterer had attended the previous week but had said he had not been instructed to plaster that wall. The resident said she wanted the walls to be made good following the bannister repair that had been done and that she was not satisfied with the workmanship and customer service provided.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 12 February 2021. It said:
1. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of her home and work done by the developer and landlord. It acknowledged that she had wanted to raise a complaint on 24 October 2019 and that, whilst some issues had been resolved, there were still some items reported during the defect period which remained outstanding.
2. It confirmed the defect period ended in August 2020 and that a defect inspection had not been carried out due to the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time. The resident had been asked to provide a list of defects instead. The delays in attending to those defects was due to services having to be adapted to comply with the government’s guidelines. It was still not able to do an inspection due to the latest restrictions but would arrange a virtual inspection by video call instead.
3. It acknowledged that the making-good work needed following bannister repairs had not been done because of communication failures. It had now been rescheduled for 18 February 2021 and the handrail would be repaired the same day. This work could be done within current restrictions at it was a health and safety issue.
4. The issue of low water pressure to the downstairs shower was on hold as it was not considered to be an emergency. It apologised that she had previously been given different advice and assured her that the work would be done after restrictions were lifted.
5. The photographs the resident had provided of the workmanship of the wash basin replacement had been sent to the relevant manager who would contact her.
6. It had arranged for a gas engineer to attend on 3 March 2021 regarding the heating controls.
7. It noted the letter from her occupational therapist on 20 November 2020 but could only authorise minor adaptations such as the extra handrail. It reiterated that it would not fit automatic risers in the kitchen but she could investigate applying for a disabled facilities grant through her occupational therapist.
8. It concluded that it should not have taken so long for the defects to be resolved and apologised for the delays. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
The virtual inspection by video call took place on 19 February 2021. The landlord’s notes say that the surveyor had told the resident that not all the work she reported could be resolved and that the landlord had a backlog of work due to covid.
On 17 March 2021 the developer emailed the resident to book appointments to attend to reseal doors and repair cracks and nail pops to the ceilings and walls. Appointments were made for 7, 10 and 11 May 2021.
Between 19 April 2021 and 7 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord several times to progress the repair and defect work, and sent further photographs of the issues. The landlord initially advised it was considering a quote from a contractor for the work not being done by the developer. It subsequently said that the work would be done by its own operatives and overseen by its surveyor.
On 13 May 2021 the developer wrote to the resident to advise it had completed the defects work identified at the end of the defects period. It said that outstanding work to reseal the front door would be carried out by the landlord.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 17 May 2021 saying she was not satisfied that her complaint had been resolved because most of the work she had reported remained outstanding. She did not want her complaint to be closed until all of the work had been done. The landlord advised that the work would still be progressed despite the complaint being closed and that it would consider the matter of compensation when the all the work had been completed. It said that it had escalated her complaint and would contact her again on 24 May 2021.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 14 June 2021. It increased its offer of compensation to £325 in recognition of its handling of the defects and repairs, and its complaints handling. It said that it was progressing the outstanding repairs but there were continuing delays due to covid. The landlord reiterated that it would not fit automatic risers in the kitchen and again signposted the resident to her occupational therapist for support with a disabled facilities grant.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2021 saying that work was due to take place that week but she was not clear what jobs were going to be done. She said that the works supervisor had told her that he had not been instructed to carry out some of the work she had reported. During the week the resident called the landlord several times to clarify the work to be done and to resolve issues arising from the work taking place. She also asked for someone to contact her about her complaint.
The resident made a second formal complaint to the landlord on 22 July 2021 saying that she was dissatisfied with some work that had been done the previous week. She listed eleven outstanding issues including low water pressure to the downstairs shower and work not completed to the downstairs toilet to prevent blockages. The resident said that the heating controls were due to be investigated on 27 July 2021 but her position remained that they had not been installed correctly during construction. She said that she had repeatedly asked for the specification for the adapted kitchen but it had not been provided.
It is not clear from the evidence seen what happened after the resident made her second complaint. It is evident that the landlord emailed the resident on 10 August 2021 saying that it had intended to reply to her complaint by 11 August 2021 but would now do so by 20 August 2021. This was because it was due to carry out an inspection at the resident’s home.
The landlord provided its response on 20 August 2021 as a continuation of the resident’s initial complaint. It said:
1. It had provided responses to the resident’s complaint at stage one and stage two and had offered £325 compensation. It had completed further works since 12 July 2021 but acknowledged some work discussed with her during an inspection on 13 August 2021 remained outstanding.
2. It would replace the back door rather than repairing it as a gesture of goodwill. It would also reseal the front and back doors.
3. It did not agree there was low water pressure to the downstairs shower but would replace the shower head anyway. It would fit shower doors to prevent water travelling from the downstairs bathroom and a durgo unit to the toilet to reduce the risk of blockages.
4. It was satisfied with the standard of tiling in the upstairs bathroom and no further work would be done. It would, however, replace the bath taps to match the basin ones and reseal the floor for aesthetic reasons. It would also paint the skirting board and touch up the walls.
5. It would install additional drainage in the rear garden. But it was satisfied that the garden fence was the correct height and would not replace it.
6. It would box in the porch fascia for aesthetic reasons.
7. It had inspected the loft and was satisfied that the developer had installed the correct fire safety measures. It had attended to repairs in the loft caused by the property settling and was satisfied there were no fire safety risks.
8. Its specialist contractor had confirmed that the heating system had been installed correctly and that no work was needed. The resident could control the heating in each room using the thermostatic radiator valves. The landlord could arrange an energy assessment to assist the resident in the best use of her heating.
9. The adapted kitchen had been installed according to the specification provided by the council. However, the landlord acknowledged that it was heavy and difficult to adjust. It would assist her in pursuing an application for a disabled facilities grant and apologised for not attending to the “pipework” below the sink and hob in the meantime.
10. It acknowledged that it had given conflicting information about the work to be done and that its internal communication had contributed to the delay in resolving the defects and complaint. It would ensure that the outstanding work was co-ordinated and would contact her by 27 August 2021 to agree appointments.
11. It had previously offered £325 compensation and now agreed to carry out some works which would otherwise be the resident’s responsibility. It had carried out a further review in response to the resident’s complaint of 22 July 2021 and considered her complaint to have reached the end of its process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2021 saying that she remained dissatisfied due to the amount of work outstanding and the disruption, time and trouble caused in trying to resolve the issues. She said that she accepted the landlord’s position regarding the kitchen being installed to the specification provided at the time and that she would need help from her occupational therapist regarding automatic risers. However, the kitchen did not adjust manually because a water softener and gas pipe were fitted beneath and she felt this should have been addressed when she had initially reported it at the start of her tenancy. She asked for a copy of the heating specification and said that the compensation offer was not sufficient. The landlord provided a copy of the central heating specification and specialist contractors report.
It is not clear from the evidence seen exactly what happened between 24 August 2021 and 10 September 2021, although it is evident that there continued to be contact between the resident and landlord regarding the outstanding work. On 10 September 2021, the landlord provided its response to the resident’s email of 24 August 2021. It said it was satisfied that most of the work outstanding had not been reported during the defect period and that it was organising a contractor to complete the remaining work.
The landlord said it aimed to complete the remaining work by the beginning of November 2021 and clarified the jobs which would be carried out. It reiterated that it had inspected the loft and found no safety issues but it would arrange another inspection to give reassurance. The landlord reiterated that it would not carry out any work to the garden fence and heating controls. It said that it could find no record of her reporting the issue of pipework under the adapted kitchen before July 2021 and that its plan to rectify this had been put on hold pending the outcome of the fitting of automatic risers by the occupational therapist. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £375 and said it would complete the work it had agreed to do. It confirmed that the complaint had now exhausted its procedure.
There was further contact between the resident and landlord between 13 September 2021 and 23 September 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied that her complaint had been closed whilst works were outstanding and with the progress of the work. The landlord arranged for its energy assessor to visit on 23 September 2021 to give advice on using the heating system efficiently.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 October 2021 explaining that most of the work that the landlord had agreed to do remained outstanding and that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s position regarding the heating controls, garden fence and adapted kitchen. She said that:
1. The shower doors had been fitted but, as part of the work, the contractor had removed the grab rails and not replaced them leaving holes in the wall tiles which were sharp. She said that the landlord had refused to rectify this.
2. Work done in the garden in July 2021 had caused the garden level to drop and further work was needed. Although the landlord had agreed to do this, it had asked her to move planted beds which would be difficult due to her partner’s disabilities.
3. On 7 October 2021 the landlord’s fire safety officer had wanted the loft inspected again but no one had yet contacted her to arrange this.
4. She was dissatisfied that the landlord would not rectify misaligned skirting boards in the front bedroom, skirting boards where nails were visible, the porch which was not level, and continuing nail pop holes in ceilings.
5. Overall she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication, general attitude, timescales, reliability and workmanship.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The resident’s email to this Service of 22 October 2021 referred to external pointing and adjusting a door to a bedroom cupboard. From the evidence seen, these repairs do not appear to have been raised with the landlord during the complaint process. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides for the landlord to have the opportunity to address a complaint before the Ombudsman considers it. As we have seen no evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to address these issues, we have not considered them in this investigation. The resident may be able to raise a separate complaint to the landlord about its response to those issues, and refer the matter to us at the end of the landlord’s complaints process if she remains dissatisfied.
For ease of reading, this report groups the various defects and repairs under separate sub-headings before giving our findings about the landlords overall handling of the defects and repairs.

Defects and repairs in the downstairs shower room and toilet

There were two issues affecting the resident’s use of the downstairs shower, the drainage of wastewater and the water pressure to the shower. The resident told this Service that she had reported both issues to the landlord multiple times from moving into the property. Whilst the evidence seen is unclear, it is evident that the resident had contacted the landlord frequently regarding various issues from the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s records show that defect orders regarding shower water not draining away were raised with the developer on 5 and 8 August 2019. It is not clear from the evidence seen when these were attended but the resident advised this Service that the bathroom floor was re-levelled by the developer around August 2019. The resident told us that after this work, there continued to be an issue with water running into the kitchen when the shower was used and that she had continued to report the problem to the developer and the landlord. The evidence seen confirms that the resident told the landlord that the shower room was “unusable” on 24 October 2019.
No evidence has been seen regarding what happened next until the resident’s email of 22 July 2021 which said that shower doors should have been fitted the previous week to prevent wastewater from the shower running into the kitchen. The resident explained to us that the landlord had carried out an inspection on 2 July 2021 and agreed to fit shower doors to prevent water running into the kitchen. The resident confirmed to this Service that the doors were fitted around October 2021 and this is evidenced by the landlord’s repair log which shows it accepted the invoice for the work on 25 October 2021. However, the resident said that grab rails were removed from the wall during the work and not replaced leaving holes in the wall tiles which were sharp. She said that the landlord had refused to attend to this although this has not been confirmed by the landlord.
Although the drainage issue was ultimately resolved by the landlord, it took over two years for it to do so. This was not reasonable given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities from the start of the tenancy and, from 24 October 2019, that the resident felt the shower room was not usable due to the various issues. Furthermore, the landlord was aware of the impact this had on the resident’s ability to bathe independently from 20 November 2020. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended to any follow-on rectification work after fitting the shower doors.
The second issue affecting the resident’s use of the downstairs shower was the water pressure. The resident’s occupational therapist reported the issue on 20 November 2020, highlighting that the resident with disabilities was having to use the upstairs bathroom. The resident told this Service that she had contacted the landlord in the first instance and was advised to raise it with her occupational therapist and ask them to refer the necessary work to the landlord. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, there is no specific reference to this in the evidence seen. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord raised the repair order on 25 November 2020 although the timescale set for completing the work was outside the landlord’s policy timescales and it is not clear from the evidence seen why this was the case.
The work was not done as planned in January 2021 as the landlord explained that it was only carrying out essential work due to covid restrictions. It said that the work to address the shower water pressure had been put on hold as it was not an emergency. Given the national covid restrictions in place at the time, the landlord’s general approach in attending to only essential repairs was reasonable.
However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered the resident’s disabilities either when raising the initial order for the shower repair or subsequently deciding to delay the work due to covid restrictions. The landlord was aware that the resident was using the upstairs bathroom due to the various issues with the shower room, including the water pressure, as this had been set out in the occupational therapist’s email of 20 November 2020. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered if restoring use of the shower should be classed as an emergency repair when it raised the order on 25 November 2020. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered if restoring use of the shower was “essential work” which should be done despite the covid restrictions in place during January 2021. That it did not consider the risks arising from the repair and the vulnerabilities of the resident was contrary to its obligations under its repairs policy.
Although the evidence seen is unclear, it is likely that the landlord did attend to repair the shower at some point. However, in her email of 22 July 2021, the resident told the landlord that low pressure was still an issue. After inspecting the property on 13 August 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it did not agree that the water pressure was low. However, it said that it would replace the shower head to see if that made any improvement and reiterated its intention to replace the shower head in its email of 10 September 2021. The resident told this Service on 8 February 2023 that the work had not been done and no evidence has been seen to suggest otherwise.
Whilst this Service does not have the expertise to assess the contested issue of the water pressure, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports. In this case, the landlord concluded there was no issue over eight months after the first report by the resident’s occupational therapist. Despite concluding there was no issue, the landlord committed to replacing the shower head but did not do so. The delay in investigating the issue and carrying out agreed work was not reasonable and resulted in further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident reported blockages to the downstairs toilet on four occasions between 5 September 2019 and 11 June 2020. She had also reported a leak to the waste pipe of the toilet previously on 5 August 2019. The resident disputes that she had caused blockages by flushing wet wipes down the toilet. She told this Service that the landlord commissioned a drainage report which had concluded there was a problem with the drainage pipework and recommended a durgo unit be fitted to increase the flush pressure. No evidence was provided by the landlord relating to this drainage report but it is evident that the landlord ordered a durgo unit which was delivered to the resident’s home around July 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a specialist survey given the ongoing issues with the toilet and reasonable that it acted on the survey findings. However, the resident told this Service on 8 February 2023 that the durgo unit had not yet been fitted and no evidence has been seen to suggest otherwise. The resident told us that ongoing concern about further blockages causes them to minimise the use of the toilet, meaning that the disabled resident continues to mostly use the upstairs toilet.

Defects and repairs in the upstairs bathroom

The resident reported various defects and repairs to the upstairs bathroom including flooring, joinery work, sealant and taps. Whilst the developer and landlord attended to some of the jobs reported, the evidence shows that the resident reported some issues several times and was dissatisfied with some of the work carried out.
The resident reported issues with the bath and bath panel on at least six occasions between 8 August 2019 and 29 January 2021. The evidence seen shows that the landlord acknowledged that the bath panel had been ”fitted poorly” on 2 October 2020 and that the landlord’s surveyor had concluded that the bath needed replacing on 19 March 2021. Whilst the evidence seen is unclear, the resident advised us that the bath was replaced in July 2021 by the landlord’s internal contractor but that this had caused further issues. She said that, during the work, wall tiles had been replaced which were not in line with the existing tiles, and the new laminated chipboard bath panel was deteriorating. The evidence seen shows the resident had reported the tiles and bath panel again on 22 July 2021. The landlord subsequently advised that it was satisfied that no work was needed to the wall tiles but there is no evidence that it addressed the further reports about the bath panel.

Repairs in respect of the central heating controls

The resident raised concerns about the central heating controls on 14 January 2021 and the landlord appropriately raised a repair order on 12 February 2021. It is not clear from the evidence seen what happened next until the landlord commissioned an independent review of the heating on 15 July 2021. The landlord’s contractor provided its report to the landlord on 3 August 2021. The report shows that the contractor tested the heating zones but did not make any comment regarding their configuration. The report concluded that the heating and controls were installed and working correctly and that no rectification work was needed. The resident continued to dispute this, maintaining that the controls should operate the upstairs and downstairs heating zones independently.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a specialist survey, and the landlord was entitled to rely on its expert’s opinion that the system had been installed correctly and that no rectification work was needed. However, the survey was not arranged until six months after the resident raised concerns. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer the services of its energy assessor to advise the resident on efficient use of the heating until 20 August 2021, over seven months after the resident had raised concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken both steps sooner.

Repairs regarding fire safety in the loft

It is not clear from the evidence seen how the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the loft first arose. However an internal email from the landlord’s surveyor dated 19 March 2021 states “large gaps have been left between the dividing walls and roofing” in the loft. The landlord subsequently raised an order for the gaps to be filled on 28 April 2021, and although the evidence seen is unclear, the resident told us that the work was done in July 2021. The evidence shows that the resident continued to raise concerns after this work and that the landlord advised that there were no safety issues, but it would carry out a further inspection to give reassurance. However, no evidence has been seen that a further inspection took place.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring appropriate fire safety in its properties and it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out work in the loft. However, the evidence seen suggests that the resident was given conflicting information which resulted in her continuing to raise concerns about fire safety. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out the further inspection it had committed to doing as this may have given reassurance to the resident.
The resident told this Service on 8 February 2023 that she no longer had concerns about fire safety as she had gained other assessment of the loft from an independent source. However, she said that she wanted the landlord to acknowledge that there had been an issue, and an order has been made below for the landlord to explain its position. The landlord should also consider whether it has sufficient assurance that there are no remaining risks which would increase the impact should a fire occur.

Defects and repairs regarding internal decorations and joinery work

The resident reported numerous issues regarding internal decorations between 8 August 2019 and 24 August 2021, some of these arising due to other work that had been carried out. Whilst the landlord raised several orders with the developer and contractors in response, the evidence seen shows there were delays, that the resident was dissatisfied with some of the work done, and that not all of the work was attended. In its final response of 10 September 2021, the landlord said that it had asked a contractor to quote for making good to the nail pops that had been attended to previously, and that it would attend to them for the last time.
The landlord has obligations to make good to decorations if needed due to disrepair or following work it has done, but generally internal decorating is the resident’s responsibility. In this case, the landlord agreed to carry out decorating work beyond that which was obliged to do, and having given this commitment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed the work. That it has not done so is unreasonable and caused frustration and distress to the resident.
The resident made several reports to the landlord about the skirting boards in various rooms between 5 August 2019 and 12 February 2021. Whilst the landlord raised several orders with the developer and contractors in response, the evidence seen shows that there delays, and that the landlord did not address the resident’s reports on some occasions.
In her email to this Service of 22 October 2021 the resident said that the skirting boards in the bedroom and landing were not flush and had nails protruding. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether there is a repair issue with the skirting boards or not. However, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s reports and have explained its reasoning if it felt that there was no repair issue that it was obliged to attend to. That it did not do so caused frustration and distress to the resident. The landlord should now clarify its position to the resident regarding the skirting boards.

Defects and repairs to the exterior of the property

The resident says that there was a drainage issue in the back garden from August 2019 when she moved in although there is no reference to this in the evidence seen until an internal email dated 19 March 2021. The email shows that the landlord was aware of a drainage issue and determined that work was needed to prevent water entering the property. On 20 August 2021 the landlord said that, following work recently completed, further drainage work was needed. The resident told this Service on 8 February 2023 that the further work had not been done and no evidence has been seen to suggest otherwise.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and implied duties of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of its properties in good condition. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes and making sure that there is no water ingress into a property. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for work to be carried out once it had identified a drainage issue. However, having concluded that further drainage work was needed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out the work. That it did not do so was contrary to its repairing obligations and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Following the drainage work done around July 2021, the resident reported that the ground level had been raised resulting in the fencing height being insufficient to provide privacy between her property and the neighbouring one. Despite the work it had carried out in the garden, the landlord had no obligation to replace the fence and, therefore, its decision not to do so was reasonable.
From the evidence seen, the resident first reported that the front porch was not level in her stage one complaint of 14 January 2021 but the matter was not addressed in the landlord’s response of 12 February 2021. An internal email dated 19 March 2021 said that the landlord had not been able to see any issue during a video inspection but had asked a contractor to investigate and report back. The landlord said on 20 August 2021 that it would box the porch in. However, the resident told this Service on 8 February 2023 that the work had not been done and no evidence has been seen to the contrary. Although no evidence has been seen that there is repair needed to the porch which the landlord would be obliged to resolve, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out the boxing in that it said it would do. That it did not do so caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.

Overall handling of defects and repairs

The landlord’s evidence does not provide a comprehensive record of the defects it reported to the developer or work that the developer completed. Internal emails provided by the landlord evidence confusion between the landlord’s staff members about which of the issues raised by the resident were defects, repairs or requests for adaptations. There is evidence of the landlord chasing the developer after contact from the resident and referring issues that were not defects to internal teams. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken a more proactive and co-ordinated approach when it became clear that there were issues. That it did not do so caused delay and confusion in addressing the issues reported. For example, on 15 January 2021 the landlord asked the resident to clarify which of the issues she had reported on 14 January 2021 were related to defects it had already reported to the developer. It also caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to report issues numerous times, chase responses and update the landlord with progress.
Under its post completion procedure, the landlord had the option to rectify defects itself after the developer had been given two opportunities to do so. The landlord did arrange for a contractor to carry out some defect work in September 2019, explaining that this was due to delays with the developer. However, it is not clear from the evidence seen why some defect issues were left with the developer or whether the landlord considered carrying out all of the outstanding defect work itself before the end of the defect period. Given the resident’s dissatisfaction with response timescales and quality of work done, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered arranging for a contractor to carry out all of the outstanding defect work. There is evidence that defects being completed by both the developer and a contractor during the same time period caused confusion in that the landlord did not know which had completed a particular job.
The landlord would normally have carried out an inspection before the end of the defect period. In this case the landlord explained it was not carrying out inspections in August 2020 due to covid. This Service is not aware of any specific restrictions in place at the time which would have prevented the landlord from carrying out an inspection. However, the landlord had a responsibility to minimise risks to its staff and customers and it was reasonable that it took a cautious approach. The landlord’s approach of asking the resident to provide a list and photographs of defects instead was reasonable under the circumstances.
The evidence seen shows that defects work was being still being done by the developer until 11 May 2021, almost nine months after the defect period should have ended. Whilst the evidence is unclear in explaining the reason for this, it is likely that covid restrictions during 2020 and 2021 caused some delays. It is acknowledged that covid had an impact on the ability to complete defects and repairs, but the landlord and developer had seven months before the pandemic to resolve the defects which had been reported by the resident.
Whatever the reason for the developer’s continuing involvement, this resulted in there being a period between 25 November 2020 and 11 May 2021 where work was being done by the developer and also the landlord’s internal repairs contractor. As with the evidence regarding defects, the evidence provided regarding repairs reported is unclear in respect of the work carried out and dates of completion. The overlap of the developer and internal contractor, along with the landlord’s record keeping, caused confusion to the landlord in that it was not sure whether some completed jobs had been done by the developer or its contractor. For example the landlord asked the resident to confirm who had carried out a repair to the bath panel when she complained about the workmanship. This job had originally been raised with the developer who made an appointment with the resident, but it was also raised with a contractor along with other work. The resident was similarly unclear about who was attending the various jobs she had reported.
The evidence seen shows that the landlord gave the resident conflicting advice about who would be carrying out defect and repair work several times. For example, the landlord told the resident in on 23 April 2021 that it was considering a quote from a contractor for the outstanding work. Then, on 30 April 2021, it advised that the work would be done by its own operatives. Similarly, the landlord changed its position regarding work it was prepared to complete several times. Whilst there may have been good reasons for these changes, it is understandable that the resident was not clear on what was going to be done, when and by whom. This caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
The landlord has not given this Service any explanation of why it had not completed some of the work that it had committed to do in its letters of 20 August 2021 and 10 September 2021. The evidence seen shows that the resident continued to telephone and email the landlord to progress the work between 10 September 2021 and 1 March 2022. Given the significant delays and the resident’s dissatisfaction, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that the work it had committed to carry out was done in a timely manner.
Furthermore, an email from the landlord’s surveyor to the resident of 21 February 2022 says, “I presumed due to the Ombudsman’s involvement everything was being dealt with through this process”. A later email refers to other colleagues being under the same impression. Although is not clear whether this presumption was the cause of the landlord not progressing the work it had committed to doing, the landlord should understand the involvement of the Ombudsman does not prevent the landlord completing work that has been agreed.
Whilst some of the defect and repair issues were relatively minor and some were resolved, the number of issues raised and time taken to address them was not reasonable. It is noted that the landlord carried out some work that it was not obliged to do under its repairing obligations. However, other issues still remain unresolved, including the water pressure to the downstairs shower and the drainage to the toilet, which has caused the resident to minimise use of those facilities. It is also concerning that the landlord did not attend to the work that it had agreed to do. The failings highlighted caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period, therefore, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of defects and repairs.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case the landlord agreed to carry out further work but did not do so and an order has been made for the landlord to complete that work. Although the landlord offered compensation of £375 this was not sufficient redress for the failings identified in this report. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £1500 compensation. This takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the length of time these issues have been ongoing without resolution. It also takes into account the resident’s vulnerability – his disability and need to use the downstairs shower room. The Ombudsman considers these vulnerabilities as aggravating factions when considering redress which justifies an increased award to reflect the specific impact on him. It is also within the range of amounts that Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of severe maladministration, including cases where repair issues have been outstanding for a prolonged period.

Handling of requests for adaptations

Whilst there is some information about adaptations on the landlord’s website, this does not clearly state the landlord’s responsibilities, its policy in providing adaptations or fully explain how it will make decisions on adaptations requests. The landlord should consider having a policy to give transparency and ensure consistency in decision making and should also review the information on its website.
It is not disputed that the adapted kitchen was not specifically designed for the resident. However, given that the property was intended to be occupied by a disabled person, it would have been reasonable for the features provided to be suitable for the use they were intended. There were issues with the installation of the kitchen which prevented the height from being adjusted as intended. In its email of 20 August 2021, the landlord told the resident that the kitchen had been installed “according to the specification dictated” by the council. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the specification for this investigation but the landlord did not do so.
The landlord’s letter of 10 September 2021 said that it had not been made aware of the “pipework” preventing the height of the kitchen being adjusted prior to July 2021. However, the resident told this Service that the water softener and gas meter had been present when she moved in and she had reported to the developer and the landlord that the height of the worktops could not be adjusted several times from moving in. She explained that the landlord had advised her to contact her occupational therapist and ask them to refer any work needed to the landlord. Subsequently, her occupational therapist wrote to the landlord on 20 November 2020 but had asked for automatic risers rather than highlighting the issue preventing manual height adjustment.
The resident had sent the landlord photographs of the gas meter and water softener below the base units on 29 January 2021 and an internal email of 19 March 2021 confirms that the landlord was aware of the issue, acknowledged that the pipework needed to be changed and said that it was on a list of items given to its contractor. Although it is unclear from the evidence, the resident advised us that the landlord subsequently fitted flexible pipework to the gas meter and water softener but said that this did not resolve the issue as the meter and softener still prevented the worktops from being adjusted.
The landlord’s letter of 20 August 2021 apologised for not attending to the pipework but the landlord still did not make any arrangements to resolve the issue. In the letter, the landlord acknowledged that it could have provided more proactive support to help the resident with the kitchen issues and said it would liaise with her occupational therapist. The landlord’s subsequent letter of 10 September 2021 said that it had done so but not received a response and asked the resident to contact her occupational therapist. This service has not seen evidence that any work has been carried out to the kitchen or further assistance given to the resident to pursue a disabled facilities grant since the landlord’s letter of 10 September 2021.
The installation issues preventing the kitchen from being adjusted manually should have been resolved during the defect period. It was unreasonable that the landlord directed the resident to her occupational therapist to request the work and caused confusion and delay when the occupational therapist requested automatic risers. The landlord missed further opportunities to resolve the issue, for example, after the resident sent the photographs in January 2021 and when it replaced the pipework but did not move the gas meter and water softener. These failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to report the issue several times and chase responses.
It was reasonable that the landlord declined to install automatic risers given that it has no legal obligation to do so. However, once the landlord had decided that it would wait for the outcome of a disabled facilities grant request before carrying out further work to the kitchen, it should have explained its position to the resident and no evidence has been seen that it did so at the time. As acknowledged in its letter of 20 August 2021, the landlord could also have supported the resident in pursuing a disabled facilities grant sooner. The landlord’s failings in these respects caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s initial position to refuse to replace the wash basin in the downstairs shower room was reasonable given that it had no legal obligation to do so. The landlord’s subsequent decision to replace it was a positive outcome for the resident though it is not clear from the evidence provided why the landlord changed its mind.
For the reasons set out above there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations. Orders have been made below for the landlord to complete work to enable the kitchen worktops to adjust manually and pay the resident £1000 compensation. This takes into account the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the length of time the issues relating to the kitchen have been ongoing. It also takes into account the resident’s vulnerability – his disability and need to use the kitchen. A recommendation has been made to provide further assistance to the resident in pursuing a disabled facilities grant.

Complaints handling

The resident first made a complaint by telephone on 24 October 2019 and the evidence seen shows the landlord understood that she wished to make a “formal complaint”. Although the landlord responded to the issues raised by contacting the developer, it did not deal with the complaint through its formal process. Similarly, when the resident emailed a complaint on 14 January 2021, the landlord responded to the issues raised but did not initially deal with the dissatisfaction through its complaints process.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord has investigated the reasons for these complaints not being recognised as such. Under its complaints policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the resident’s telephone call of 24 October 2019 as a complaint. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have dealt with the resident’s email of 14 January 2021 as a stage two complaint when it was received. In not doing so, the landlord missed opportunities to resolve the resident’s issues sooner and caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses were not provided within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Its policy at the time stated it would respond to complaints at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within five working days. Having already failed to recognise the complaint made by the resident in October 2019, the landlord provided its response to her complaint of 14 January 2021 on 12 February 2021 which was 21 working days after the complaint was made. Its stage two response of 14 June 2021 was 19 working days after the landlord had escalated the resident’s complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have notified the resident if it was unable to provide responses within its policy timescales and to have set extended response times.
The landlord explained that the delay in responding to the resident’s requests for contact regarding her complaint made on 12 and 14 July 2021 was due to the relevant officer being off sick. This Service would expect the landlord to have arrangements in place to fulfil its policy commitments when its staff are absent. Therefore the explanation that the delay was due to sickness absence was not reasonable.
The landlord’s approach in responding to the resident’s further complaints of 22 July 2021 and 24 August 2021 as a continuation of the same complaint was reasonable given that they related to the same issues. However, the landlord’s response timescales were 21 working days and 13 working days respectively after the resident’s emails. Although the landlord had extended its timescale for its response to the resident’s complaint of 22 July 2021 due to it planning to inspect the property on 13 August, its timescales for responses were still not reasonable given the complaint had been ongoing since 24 October 2019.
The landlord should ensure that it is able to respond to complaints within the timescales set by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) wherever possible and agree extended timescales with residents where it is not able to do so.
None of the landlord’s complaint responses clearly set out what stage of the complaints process the resident was at. The email sent by the landlord on 14 June 2021 was not clear whether it was a formal response and implied that the complaint was not yet resolved. The landlord’s subsequent correspondence on 20 August 2021 suggests that the landlord did consider its email of 14 June 2021 to be its stage two response. The Code says that the complaint stage should be made clear within landlord’s complaint responses. The lack of clarity in the landlord’s responses caused confusion in that the resident was unclear on the status of her complaint and potentially denied the resident an earlier escalation to the Ombudsman. The landlord should now review its processes to ensure that correspondence sent as part of the complaints procedure is clearly marked.
In its responses to the complaint, the landlord admitted some failures including delays in attending to defects and repairs, communication failures and complaints handling. It apologised and offered compensation. Whilst this was resolution focussed, the compensation offered was not sufficient considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the 22-month duration of her complaints. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint responses did not put things right for the resident as the landlord did not respond to all the issues raised and did not complete all the work that it had committed to carry out. The landlord should now take steps to resolve those issues.
For the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In relation to the failures identified, orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £500 compensation. The compensation amount takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the prolonged period of her complaints. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling processes.

The landlord’s record keeping

As noted throughout this report, there were gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation. The records that were provided were often ambiguous. In addition to the record keeping issues highlighted earlier in this report, other examples include:
1. The landlord’s records say that the surveyor advised the resident of work which would and would not be done during the virtual inspection on 19 February 2021. However, this Service has not seen any record of this inspection detailing which repairs would be done and which would not. Nor has this service seen any evidence that the resident was provided with written confirmation of the works to be done and not done.
2. The landlord provided internal emails sent between 5 and 19 March 2021 which related to work to be carried out at the resident’s home. However, the emails also referred to another address and it was not explicit which property the work was related to.
3. In its email to the resident on 17 May 2021, the landlord said it would contact the resident on 24 May 2021. There is no reference in the landlord’s records to this contact having been made or any explanation for it not being made.
4. The landlord’s records say its surveyor clarified the work to be done on 19 July 2021 but no specific details are included. The landlord’s records suggest that it emailed the resident around 21 July 2021 to confirm the work but the email has not been seen by this Service.
The landlord’s record keeping is likely to have contributed to the delays in resolving the issues and in dealing with the complaint, and to have contributed to the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping to give assurance that it is fulfilling its obligations to residents.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping and an order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping practices.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of defects and repairs.
2. Handling of her requests for adaptations.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the defects and repairs reported by the resident caused unreasonable delays. Furthermore, repair issues which the landlord has obligations to attend to remained outstanding and the landlord did not carry out work it had agreed to do. The failings highlighted caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period and limited his use of the downstairs shower and toilet.
It is noted that the landlord had no legal obligation to install automatic risers to the adapted kitchen and that it replaced the wash basin despite having no obligation to do so. However, it failed to rectify the installation issues that prevented the kitchen from being manually adjusted as it was intended to. This meant that the resident with disabilities was not able to use the kitchen independently. The landlord also took too long to respond to the resident’s request and could have done more to help her apply for a disabled facilities grant to fund the work it was not prepared to do.
The landlord did not comply with the Code or its complaints policy in respect of response timescale and complaint correspondence. Furthermore, the complaint responses did not put things right for the resident as the landlord did not address all the issues and the compensation offered was not sufficient considering the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s record keeping is likely to have contributed to the delays in resolving the issues and in dealing with the complaint, and to have contributed to the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must also explain the reasons for it not carrying out the work it had committed to in its letters of 24 August 2021 and 10 September 2021, and why conflicting information was given to the resident in respect of fire safety in the loft.
2. Respond appropriately to the repairs that it is responsible for, if it has not already done so, including:
  1. Fit the durgo unit to the downstairs toilet.
  2. Complete the further drainage work needed in the garden.
  3. Complete work to ensure that the adapted kitchen can be adjusted manually as intended.
  4. Complete follow up work needed due to the removal of the grab rails in the downstairs shower room.
3. Complete the work it committed to in its complaint responses of 20 August 2021 and 10 September 2021 including:
  1. Replacing the shower head to the downstairs shower.
  2. Replacing the bath panel and resealing the floor in the upstairs bathroom.
  3. Attending to the nail pops where needed and making good to decorations in the bathroom.
  4. Boxing in the front porch.
4. Respond to the resident’s reports regarding the skirting boards not being flush and having nails protruding. The landlord should explain its reasoning if it decides no repair is needed.
5. Pay the resident compensation totalling £3375 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £375 it had already offered through its internal complaints process if it has not already paid this.
  2. £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the defects and repairs.
  3. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the adaptations requested.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Review its complaints handling procedures and provide training to its staff members to ensure that:
1. Complaint responses comply with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Its staff members can recognise a complaint and route it through its complaints process.
3. Ensure that the Ombudsman’s involvement is not seen as a barrier to resolving issues.
Review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear, accurate and comprehensive records.

Recommendations

The Landlord must advise the Ombudsman of its response to the following recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Consider whether it has sufficient assurance that there are no remaining risks which would increase the impact should a fire occur.
2. Provide further assistance to the resident to secure an occupational therapist assessment. The landlord should also provide support to the resident in applying for a disabled facilities grant if adaptations are needed which the landlord is not able to provide.
3. Consider developing an adaptations policy and/or providing more information on its website to give transparency on the minor adaptations it may provide and clarity on how it will make decisions on adaptations requests.
4. Review other complaint cases where the resident has approached the Ombudsman to ensure there are no other cases where agreed work has been delayed.