London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202007203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007203

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 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. Response to the resident’s concerns about damaged internal doors;
2. Response to the resident’s reports of defective windows;
3. Handling of hallway decorating works;
4. Response to issues raised at the start of the tenancy;
5. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damaged internal doors.
Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
The resident raised the issue of damage to internal doors at the second stage of the complaints process. The resident said that that complaint related to damage to the doors caused by the landlord’s operatives. There is no evidence of this specific issue being reported to the landlord on the timeline.
The information seen suggests that this issue has not completed the landlord’s complaints process and therefore the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond in accordance with its procedures. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. This service may be in a position to consider this issue, if it completes the landlord’s complaints process.
The assessment and findings will therefore focus on the remaining elements of the case which are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

The property is a two bedroom, second floor flat, under an assured shorthold tenancy which started in November 2017.
Between November 2017 and February 2020, the following repairs were raised and recorded as completed on the landlord’s repair records:
1. The bathroom mixer tap.
2. Water pressure.
3. Damaged flooring to the kitchen.
4. Damaged extractor fan.
5. Crack to the living room ceiling.
6. Door locks.
7. Reports of an uninsulated loft.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 December 2019. This was made by telephone and the call summary has been provided. The resident said:
1. That the windows could not be properly closed and excessive noise was coming through, due to single gazing and “large gaps” around the windows. This meant the heating needed to be on constantly, costing £30 per week and the noise from the main road was affecting her sleep.
2. There was only one radiator in a bedroom where there was pipework for two.
3. There was an issue with the boiler when she moved in and she wanted to know why this was not addressed before she moved in.
4. That while she received a redecoration voucher for £300, she has spent over £1000 making the property liveable. The resident added that there was damp and holes to the walls.
5. That she has used all of her annual leave entitlement for maintenance and inspection appointments.
The landlord’s call records, from an internal complaints document, note that the windows were scheduled for replacement in December 2020. While this was an internal record made by a member of the landlord’s staff, it recorded the resident being informed of the same.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 January 2020. The resident followed up with an online complaint form the same day. This reiterated the points raised in the phone call on 4 December 2019 and added that:
1. The property was not ready to be moved into at the start of the tenancy as the voids team did not complete adequate checks of the property.
2. There were two outstanding repairs. These were the fitting of a new radiator and repairs to all windows.
3. The repairs undertaken since the start of the tenancy included the:
  1. Mixer tap to the bathroom.
  2. Water leak to the kitchen.
  3. Boiler not working.
  4. Changing a number of radiators.
  5. Lack of loft insulation.
  6. Crack to the ceiling.
  7. Loose banister.
  8. Broken bathroom fan.
  9. Internal doors which could not be closed.
  10. Damp to the bedroom wall which had to be redecorated.
  11. Missing flooring.
Repair records showed that the windows were overhauled on 24 January 2020, following a supervisor visit to the property on 8 January 2020. This was 51 days after the complaint was first raised.
The landlord responded to the complaint formally on 13 February 2020. It apologised for the delay in responding, following a property visit on 14 January 2020. This constituted the first stage one response. This was 71 days after the complaint was first raised. It said that
1. All void works were carried out including works to windows, and cracks to the walls and ceilings.
2. There was no sign of damp or leaks from the roof.
3. New radiators should have been fitted prior to the start of the tenancy.
4. The landlord added that the void supervisor signed off all works as having been carried out to the required standard.
5. There were “some service delivery failures” between 2017 and 2019, but that its records now showed that the works to the windows had been completed.
6. £340 was offered as a rent account credit,for inconvenience, for the “service delivery failures” and the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident responded by email on 13 February 2020. She said the windows were not fitted correctly and that the contractor who recently attended confirmed it was a temporary fix and that new windows needed to be fitted. She disputed that the void repairs were completed to standard and said that the complaint was about the number of issues with the property and the length of time taken to resolve them. The offer of compensation was acknowledged but the resident requested that the amount be reconsidered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 February 2020. It said that it would arrange for the hallway to be repainted, but that there was no availability until the middle of April 2020 onwards. This was in response to reports by the resident that the landlord’s operatives damaged the wall.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 July 2020, notifying us of outstanding issues.
There is a gap in correspondence until 16 September 2020 when the resident emailed the landlord and requested that the hallway be repainted at the earliest opportunity, as per the email of 25 February 2020.
In response to the communication from the resident on 30 July 2020, this service contacted the landlord on 26 October 2020 and asked it to ensure that it had completed its complaints process. The complaint was recorded as being about the landlord’s response to outstanding void works with resolution sought in relation to the radiator, the windows, damage to the walls caused by operatives and compensation for carrying out works herself.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 October 2020. It said that all windows at the property were “overhauled” in January 2020. The landlord asked the resident to confirm which windows were causing problems. The landlord also referred to issues with the bedroom walls and acknowledged a request for compensation.
The resident responded on 28 October 2020 and acknowledged that the windows had been overhauled, and that they could be opened and closed. She said:
1. The windows were not fixed as “the frames are all rotten and let [a] draft come though…also a dangerously high level of pollution”.
2. The property needed double glazed windows and new frames and that contractor confirmed that it would report that all windows needed to be changed.
3. That plaster boards had come away from the wall in the bedroom and as it was during COVID-19, she had to pay for the work herself, which should be reimbursed.
4. Also that she has been requesting a repair to the radiator for three years.
On 5 November 2020, the landlord confirmed that its surveyor would attend to inspect the property on 10 November 2020. The landlord provided a response following the inspection and confirmed that its surveyor said that:
1. The property met the void standard applicable at the start of the tenancy.
2. The windows were “fully operational and pose no health and safety concern”.
3. A referral would be made to the planned works program for replacement windows, but this did not mean that they would actually be replaced.
4. The landlord added that it could not offer the resident reimbursement for carrying out the redecoration as all works were placed on hold due to Covid-19 restriction. It did confirm that the radiator would be reinstated.
The missing radiator in the bedroom was fitted on 18 November 2020. This was first reported January 2018.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 November 2020 and said that:
1. It took three years for the landlord to fit the radiator, which indicated that the property did not meet the voids standard.
2. She would like to understand what the landlord meant when it said the windows were fully functional as the surveyor did not open or close any windows or complete any tests.
3. She would like a copy of the report from the contractor which overhauled the windows.
4. She would like a copy of the landlord’s health and safety policy in relation to the windows.
5. A complaints officer previously offered to paint the hallway due to damage sustained; however, this person became unresponsive.
6. She had no option but to carry out the repairs to the bedroom wall as the landlord changed its repairs policy during covid.
Following the inspection on 10 November 2020 the surveyor updated the landlord using internal email and said that:
1. Reports were not provided by contractors, following completion of works, but that photographs were uploaded to the landlord’s systems.
2. The windows were inspected to determine whether they were an “immediate health and safety risk”. In his option the windows were not an immediate health and safety risk.
3. The hallway works were booked. This job reference also included making good the “lock to the doors”.
The landlord responded on 8 December 2020 with its second stage two response. It said:
1. Since a heat loss survey in January 2018, the resident had to chase several times for a radiator replacement. The landlord apologised and offered £200, comprising £50 per year for three years and £50 for inconvenience.
2. The windows were overhauled and were not deemed an immediate health and safety risk.
3. There was no report on the overhaul of the windows. An invoice was provided to indicate that the works were carried out.
4. A referral for planned maintenance was initiated for window replacement; however, this was not a guarantee that they would be replaced.
5. Repainting of the hallway was arranged, but not carried out. The landlord apologised for this. The landlord said the order had been reraised but it was still only operating a critical repairs service.
6. The door handle would be repaired at the same time as the hallway repainting.
7. The landlord would have completed works to the bedroom had it not been prevented from doing so by Covid-19 restrictions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 April 2021 and asked for:
1. The level of compensation to be reconsidered.
2. An independent contractor to inspect the windows and provide a report.
3. An update on the planned works.
4. An update on redecorating the hallway.
The Landlord responded on 19 April 2021 using the corresponding subsections below. It also made additional points. This reply constituted the stage one response to an additional part of the complaint. It said that:
1. It had been explained that the property met the required void standard at the time. Compensation was offered and accepted at the time and the complaint was closed.
2. The windows had been inspected and no health and safety issues were found. If the council provided a report the landlord would be happy to review it.
3. There was no lead time from the planning department.
4. The repairs service had just returned to normal and repairs would be prioritised accordingly.
5. The complaint was closed but the amount of £200 was reoffered.
6. The resident could raise a stage 2 complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this Service on 1 September 2021 and said that she had escalated the complaint to stage two but was yet to receive a response. It was noted by this Service that two complaints were raised by the resident.
This Service emailed the landlord on 2 September 2021 and said that the resident was waiting to receive a stage two response. The landlord was asked to provide this in accordance with its complaints process and no later than 30 September 2021.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 1 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged the outcomes sought by the resident as: window repair/renewal; repair the doors in the property; painting of the hallway; the void standard and the condition of the property on handover; the installation of a key safe; and the request for reimbursement for private works. The landlord responded as follows:
1. The windows were confirmed as fit for purpose and did not need to be renewed. A request was made to planned maintenance for them to assess and provide a decision on replacement.
2. The radiator issue was first reported on 30 January 2018 and completed on 18 November 2020.
3. Internal doors were the resident’s responsibility and that this issue had not been raised previously.
4. The hallway would be painted on 6 October 2021 between 1200 and 1700.
5. The resident was offered compensation of £150; comprising £100 for the delay in repainting the hallway and £50 for time and effort.
6. The property met the relevant void standard at the point of handover.
7. The key safe was removed.
8. The resident would not be reimbursed for private works undertaken.
9. The resident was offered £20 for the delay in issuing the stage two response.
The resident updated this Service on 1 November 2021 she said the below issues remained outstanding after the landlord’s final response:
1. The windows were faulty and caused a health and safety concern as they could not be closed properly, resulting in noise and pollution coming in.
2. The doors were damaged by the landlord’s operatives and should have therefore been repaired by the landlord.
3. The 45 minute slot to redecorate the hallway was not long enough to complete the work.
The Landlord has responded to a request for an update. It said:
1. The hallway was repainted on 23 September 2022.
2. It inspected the windows in February, May and September 2022.
3. A ‘formal response’ was provided following the February 2022 inspection which recorded that the windows were “scheduled for repair in the coming months” and that it was “sorry for the delay and inconvenience” this was causing.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, 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 the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows

The landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy says that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property including the windows. In relation to windows, the policy states that the landlord will repair insecure windows, and window frames and sills (replacing rotten sections). The landlord’s repairs policy states that ‘where age and wear and tear affects key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programmes of work.’ Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliged the landlord to repair and keep in good order the structure of the premises and the exterior.
The landlord’s direct maintenance policy, which was updated on 31 March 2020, due to COVID-19, stated that ‘DM will be contacting all residents and they will manage their upcoming future appointments. These will be suspended rather than cancelled, with a view to re-arrange to a later date. They will be contacted 2 days before.’
It is not disputed that following the first stage one complaint on 4 December 2019, the landlord appointed a contractor to overhaul the windows at the property on 24 January 2020. The work order was raised on 8 January 2020, following a supervisor visit. In this instance, the landlord has shown that it has responded to the resident’s complaint by arranging for a supervisor to visit the property, determine that works were required and proceed to carry out the overhaul.
In arranging the works within 16 days, the landlord acted appropriately in accordance with its obligations by overhauling the windows, which was within its 20 day response period.
The windows remained an issue for the resident, who emailed the landlord on 13 February 2020 to say that the windows were not fitted correctly and that the contractor who recently attended confirmed it was a temporary fix and that new windows needed to be fitted. It is not disputed that there was no report, or similar, provided by the contractor which overhauled the windows, to record the extent of the works or to record the overall condition of the windows at the point of completion. As the resident continued to raise related issues with the windows and their fitting, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a further inspection to assess the condition, following the works.
There is a gap in correspondence due to the restrictions in place as a result of COVID-19. The landlord’s policy on direct maintenance meant that only critical and emergency repairs were considered during this time.
The issue was next addressed by the landlord on 27 October 2020, where it reiterated the position that the windows had been overhauled, but asked which windows were causing problems. In consideration of the report made by the resident on 13 February 2020, it would have then been reasonable, at that stage, to arrange an inspection to determine whether the overhaul works were completed to the correct standard and to determine the overall condition of the windows. This was because the resident was distressed by the level of noise and pollution coming through the windows from the main road.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property. After the inspection he said that the windows were “fully operational and pose no health and safety concern”. The surveyor also confirmed that a referral would be made to the planned works program for replacement windows. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its surveyor; however, this presented an opportunity for the landlord to acquire clearer facts on the condition of the windows and frames. The brevity of the findings meant that it could not be explained to the resident how the windows did not pose a health and safety concern which may have relieved some of the resident’s distress. This service however, has no basis on which to find that the surveyor’s comments were inaccurate.
The resident requested that the windows be replaced. The landlord informed the resident that the referral to planned maintenance had been made, which is a reasonable indication that the landlord accepted that the windows were close to the end of their effective life. However, no timescale was provided and the landlord said that this was no guarantee that the work would be carried out. While there is no evidence that the landlord was under an obligation to replace the windows at that stage, in consideration of the dispute and the resident’s view of the condition of the windows, it may have reduced the resident’s distress if her expectations were managed better. This may have been achieved by providing more information around timescales and would have been a reasonable approach.
The landlord performed two inspections of the windows during the complaint period. The first inspection resulted in the windows being overhauled and in the second inspection, the surveyor did report on the condition; however, this lacked any material detail. In consideration of the ongoing dispute, there was an opportunity for the landlord to provide a comprehensive report on the condition of the windows. Furthermore, as the resident disputed the extent to which the surveyor inspected the windows, a report would have provided more clarity to the resident on why the landlord held that position. Not doing so had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it undertook a suitably thorough inspection did constitute a service failure in the circumstances. The landlord is therefore directed to appoint an independent inspection of the condition of the windows. The landlord is also reminded of any obligations to repair or replace when required.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the hallway by the landlord’s operatives

The landlord accepted responsibility for the damage caused by its operatives, first reported on 14 January 2020. It was therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to act promptly in returning to the property to rectify the issue; COVID-19 delays notwithstanding.
The landlord notified the resident that the appointment was made for 6 October 2021 between 12.00pm and 5.00pm. This was over 18 months after the issue was first reported. While the restrictions in place due to COVID-19 and the critical maintenance policy adopted by the landlord, did account for some of the delay, the total period of time did result in detriment to the resident, due to the distress caused.
Internal email correspondence from the landlord on 7 October 2021 said that the work did not go ahead, at the resident’s request. This was because the slot provided was 45 minutes. The resident said that the 45 minute slot provided for painting the hallway, was not long enough to complete the work. However, the landlord is entitled to allocate time to its appointments as it deems appropriate. Its obligation here was to repair the damage caused, not attend for a specific period of time. The resident was therefore unreasonable in rejecting the appointment.
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 complainant’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.
The appointment was rescheduled for 10 December 2021. It is evident from the landlord’s repair records that this repair was outstanding up to the completion of the works in September 2022.
The landlord offered £100 in compensation for the delay in carrying out the works, in addition to £50 for time and effort in pursuing this part of the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy lists the amount payable for routine defects as £2 per day with a maximum of £100 per defect. In consideration of the offer of compensation and the implied acceptance of the service failure due to the delays in responding to the complaint, up to the point of stage two response, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Issues raised at the start of the tenancy

The issue of a missing radiator in one of the bedrooms was first reported on 30 January 2018. It is not disputed by the parties that there was pipework for two radiators to one of the bedrooms, but only one radiator was fitted, with capped pipework for the other. The parties accepted that the room required two radiators. The second radiator was fitted on 18 November 2020.
During this period, the room would have required more energy to heat. A heat loss survey carried out by the landlord in January 2018 confirmed that two radiators were required to the room. It is reasonable to conclude that the room was not adequately heated for long periods while the repair was outstanding. This would have a detrimental impact on the resident’s finances due to the likelihood of increased energy usage, distress due to the inadequate heating in a bedroom, and required the resident’s time and trouble in pursing the complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation, comprising £50 per year, for three years and £50 for the inconvenience caused. However, in consideration of the length of the delay and the impact on the resident, a higher level of compensation would have been more reasonable.
Taking periods of lockdown due to COVID-19 into consideration, the delay in fitting the missing radiator was over 2 years, nine months (1023 days) minus 66 days where restrictions were in place. This resulted in a delay of 957 days, which was in excess of the landlord’s published timeframes. This therefore, constituted maladministration due to the delay in the repair and the resultant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right, in the amount of £400 for the delay; comprising: compensation of £250 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, and compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident raised a number of other issues at the start of the tenancy, as referred to in the timeline between November 2017 and February 2020, which she said is evidence of failure to meet the void standard. There was no evidence to specifically demonstrate that the property did not meet the void standard at the start of the tenancy. While the records show that some repairs were required, the presence of the remining issues identified at the start of the term did not in itself constitute service failure.

Complaints handling

The resident raised a complaint on 4 December 2019. While the landlord acted on elements of the complaint on 24 January 2020 by overhauling the windows, it did not issue a formal response until 13 February 2020. This was 71 days after the complaint was raised.
The landlord’s complaints policy said that following a stage one complaint, that it would ‘write within 10 working days’ after receiving a complaint ‘to explain the outcome of our investigation’, how it would ‘resolve the complaint and the timescales’.
While works were undertaken 51 calendar days after the complaint was raised, the formal response was 57 calendar days outside of its published timescales.
The resident proceeded to escalate the complaint to stage two on 13 February 2020. However, the resident contacted this service in July 2020 to say that she had not received a stage two response from the landlord. The landlord issued a stage two response on 8 December 2020.
The landlord’s complaints policy for stage two complaints says that it would ‘write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate’. The response was therefore issued 271 calendar days outside of its published timescales.
The landlord’s failure to provide an adequate response within a reasonable timeframe would have caused frustration for the resident, as well as time and trouble in chasing it up. When progressing through the complaints process, the resident should not have had to contact any other party for assistance. However, had the resident not contacted this service it is possible that the stage two response would not have been issued and it is probable that it would have been issued with a greater delay. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration, for which additional compensation is appropriate.
The landlord has acknowledged the delay in providing a stage two response and offered the resident £20 in compensation. However, in addition to the delay, the landlord has conflated its complaints process by sending more than one response to stage one and stage two complaints. The complaint handling code is clear, in that a process with more than three stages is not acceptable. While the responses were not defined as such, there were additional formal responses provided, thereby exceeding the number of stages in the landlord’s own process. This in itself delayed the conclusion of the complaints process and therefore delayed the resident’s ability to bring the matter to this Service.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation from £100 is appropriate for instances of maladministration. Based on the landlord’s failure to provide either complaint response within its published timescales and for not responding to the resident’s escalation request, an amount of £350 is appropriate to recognise the impact caused on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the repair to the doors at the Property is outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme,
1. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of issues with the windows.
2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues at the start of the tenancy.
3. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified in its response to reports of damage to the hallway walls.

Reasons

The compliant about the repair to the doors its outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord relied on the inspection of its surveyor. However, it missed the opportunity to provide a comprehensive report on the condition of the windows. The failure to provide a suitably thorough report, in view also that the resident disputed the extent of the inspection, meant that the landlord was not able to explain its findings to the resident in full. This had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The delay in dealing with the redecoration of the hallway was unreasonable and constituted service failure. The landlord accepted service failure for which it provided reasonable redress in the form of compensation to the resident.
The landlord did not provide an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of a missing radiator. It did not replace the radiator for over two and half years, which had a detrimental impact on the resident and would have resulted in inflated heating costs.
The landlord did not respond to the complaints within its published timescales and it did not follow its two stage process. This led to a delay in issuing the stage two response and a delay in the resident being able to use this Service. This Service also had to intervene to request that the landlord issue the stage two response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident the total of £850 compensation, comprising:
  1. £100 for the service failure resulting from the landlord not providing a suitably thorough report on the condition of windows.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays in fitting the radiator.
  3. £350 for its complaint handling failures.
2. Where compensation has already been paid direct to the resident, this may be deducted from the total. In this instance, if the amounts of £340, £200 and £20 have been paid to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears, they can be deducted from the award.
3. Compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account or any arrears.
The landlord is to appoint a suitably qualified, independent party, to undertake an inspection on the condition of the windows, within four weeks of the date of this report. It is then to provide a copy of the inspection report, together with an action plan based on its findings, to the resident and this Service within two weeks thereafter.
The landlord is to review its procedure relating to its property inspections. This is with a view to preventing insufficiently thorough reports on inspections which it carries out from being produced again in the future. The landlord must complete this review within four weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should reoffer the resident compensation of £170 comprising:
1. £100 for the delay in painting the hallway.
2. £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.