London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202209500)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209500

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 October 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

This is about how the landlord handled:
1. A repair required to the property soil stack.
2. The resident’s reports about the landlord’s contractor.
3. The resident’s reports about the cleaning contractor.
4. The associated complaint.
5. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement which began on 4 April 2013. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a 4 storey house including a basement. There is a flat on each storey which share the use of a soil stack on the rear of the building.
The landlord’s emergency repairs policy lists blocked or leaking foul drains as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint no later than 5 days after receipt.
2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10working days of logging a complaint.
Where an escalation is requested, the landlord will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If delays are expected, the landlord will update the resident explaining the reasons for the delay.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code section 5.16 says landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 2 in clear, plain language:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decision made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of outstanding actions.
7. How to escalate to the Ombudsman if the resident remains dissatisfied.

Scope of investigation

The resident explained in his complaint to the landlord how exposure to sewage resulted in him becoming unwell through exposure to sickness bacteria. He also reported to this Service an exacerbation of anxiety and depression which resulted in the development of a phobia that resulted in him being unable to use the property’s water and kitchen facilities or walk around barefoot or wearing socks. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts as the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, while this investigation will not make determinations on any damage to the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the substance of his complaints may have caused him.
The resident complained that he had experienced issues relating to disrepair for 9 years prior to bringing his complaint to this Service. In October 2020 the resident instructed a law firm to pursue a claim for housing disrepair at the property. The disrepair claim included repairs that are not considered by this investigation because they have not formed part of the resident’s complaint. The resident’s complaint was specifically regarding the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and workmanship in relation to replacing a soil stack at the property which had initially been renewed on 11 September 2020 following a series of leaks.

Summary of events

On 21 February 2022 the landlord’s recorded a job in its repair records that read a ‘recently replaced soil stack had opened up on 18 February 2022’ when there had been ‘high winds. This job was marked as cancelled meaning the exact date any repair took place is not clear.
On 23 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s legal team who had been involved in the pre court disrepair protocol. He reported the newly fitted soil stack as having fallen down and that scaffolding would be required again to complete a repair. The resident raised that previously placed scaffolding had caused a bow in his balcony, which allowed for water to pool and that further scaffolding would make this issue worse.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord’s cleaning contractor attended and cleaned sewage off the resident’s balcony.
On 26 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a post repair report from the contractor who completed a repair to the soil stack and the cleaning contractor who cleaned the sewage. The landlord replied to let the resident know that no such report was created for this repair. The resident questioned the lack of an available report as he had received post repair reports previously for other jobs.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord offered the resident an inspection via an independent surveyor to view the balcony. Previous recommended work as per the disrepair protocol had recommended the landlord to ‘repair damaged brickwork and floor to balcony’ and the landlord was not clear what this meant and thought it best to obtain clarification.
On 4 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord with a complaint via its website. He said:
1. The property had recently had its soil stack reattached which had then collapsed.
2. When the stack collapsed it had caused damage to the property’s balcony.
3. The stack had fallen down to be outside the downstairs flat and had resulted in sewage being ‘everywhere.’
4. No report had been provided about the completion of the work.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord raised a job for the resident’s balcony to be cleaned due to a further sewage spill that occurred whilst the soil stack was ‘repaired and replaced’. This job was sent to the cleaning contractor and marked complete on 22 March 2022.
From the landlord’s repair records it is not clear what date this ‘repair and replacement’ took place.
On 18 March 2022 a further online complaint was sent to the landlord from the resident. It said:
1. That the contractor who had attended to refit the soil stack had asked the resident’s son, who was in the property at the time, to say that they had put up scaffolding to complete the repair when in fact they had not.
2. The contractor had completed the job off a ladder, which had resulted in the poor quality of the finish as the parts were too heavy to work with using a ladder.
3. The resident said that the landlord should be concerned about the contractor’s health and safety practises and fraudulent invoicing for scaffolding that it had not used.
4. The consequences of the contractor’s workmanship were that the resident had been subjected to further incidents of sewage spilling out of the soil stack.
5. The resident said that his mental health had suffered as a result of the landlord’s negligence over the course of 9 years.
The resident said he would like the outcome of:
1. An investigation into the contractor.
2. Provision of the contractor’s report on the repair work.
3. Consideration as to why the contractor had asked his son to lie for them.
4. An explanation as to why the landlord treated him so badly.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, it also made an apology for its delayed response to his previous contact and explained that this was because of a high volume of emails. In addition, it let the resident know that it might require more than 10 days to investigate the complaint and a further update on this would be provided.
An internal email exchange between the landlord’s complaint and legal team at the end of March 2022 confirmed that:
1. The original repair had taken place in 2020 with scaffolding erected and the soil stack replaced.
2. This was more than 6 months before the stack collapsed during which time there had been no reported issues.
3. The recent event of disrepair was due to recent storms which had caused the top of the stack to detach.
4. The contractor had attended and used scaffolding to replace the top of the stack however the legal team were under the impression that the resident had complained that the top of the stack had not been put on straight.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint decision to the resident which said:
1. The soil stack had been replaced the ‘previous year’ and following recent high winds the top of the stack had detached. The contractor had returned as required to complete the repair.
2. The contractor had informed the landlord that scaffolding had been erected, and the top of the soil stack replaced.
3. The landlord said that it would investigate the resident’s report that the job had not been completed using scaffolding, agreeing that this would be a breach in health and safety regulations as well as false invoicing.
4. The landlord informed the resident that the stack pipe not being straight would not impact its use and therefore it would not take any further action.
5. A separate contractor had been requested to attend and carry out a deep clean of the area affected and the landlord apologised that sewage had been walked through the resident’s property when the contractor had turned up to clean the balcony.
6. Whilst there was no report from the contractor that could be shared with the resident, there was a quote which was for the erection of scaffolding and the replacement of sections of the stack pipe.
The resident responded on the same day to request an escalation of his complaint for the following reasons:
1. There was no evidence that high winds had toppled the soil stack and that this reasoning was hiding poor workmanship by the contractor. The resident pointed out that no other stacks had been blown over, just the recently replaced one.
2. He would provide photographs of a ladder being used to complete the job.
3. There had been no investigation into the contractor’s abuse of the resident’s son who had been asked to say that they had put up scaffolding.
4. It was the resident’s view that the landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation into the matter and was negligent in its duties.
5. The resident made a further request for a report on the completed job.
On 12 April 2022 the resident received an acknowledgement of his complaint escalation which said that the complaint was about:
1. The resident’s report that scaffolding had not been erected for the repair work to the soil stack.
2. A copy of the contractor’s report into the repair.
3. The customer service received.
On 3 August 2022 the resident contacted this Service regarding raw sewage ‘raining down’ on his property balcony due to what the resident considered to be a recently replaced and badly fitted soil stack which was ‘hanging off the wall.’ He said that he had been making complaints about this matter for 9 years with no resolution.
On 10 August 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to raise and consider the resident’s complaint about:
1. His 9 year experience of raw sewage with nothing being done.
2. A recently fitted sewage pipe that was ‘hanging off the wall’ and leaking raw sewage.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2. The resident responded to the landlord to let it know that he had previously escalated this complaint in April 2022, and he had not received a response. In email correspondence the landlord said that it would call the resident and although no evidence has been provided of any call taking place the resident did reply by email to say:
1. The cleaning contractor had completed their work with no safety clothing on and used a dirty cloth to wipe up the sewage.
2. His health and safety had been put at risk and there had been 9 years of victimisation.
As part of pre-court protocol for the disrepair case the landlord instructed an independent building surveyor to inspect the property and produce a report on matters of disrepair. The report, which was issued on 19 August 2022 confirmed that ‘under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the property was not prejudicial to health and was fit for human habitation’, however there were identified defects. Within the report, in relation to the soil stack, the building surveyor recommended that the stack was completely rebuilt due to the following findings:
1. It was not fixed securely to the wall.
2. It did not have adequate fixings to hold the pipework in place.
3. The top part had completely pulled away from the wall and was ‘not restrained at all.’
4. Overall, he concluded the stack was at risk of collapse due to the way it had been assembled and due to the lack of adequate fixings.
The building surveyor’s report was issued to the solicitors involved in the disrepair case on or around 17 August 2022, who then shared the report with the resident. This resident provided his comments on the report to the landlord on 24 August 2022. In his comments he said:
1. He disagreed that the report deemed the flat safe for human habitation as the soil stack could ‘collapse at any time.’
2. The report had not mentioned whether or not the soil stack repair work had been scaffolded.
3. The newly fitted soil stack had not come away from the building instead it had been fitted in that way.
4. That the contractor had breached building regulations not using scaffolding and this was a criminal offense.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident’s complaint. It said the response was in relation to the complaint it had first received on 18 March 2022.
About repairs to the broken soil stack, the landlord said:
1. All works relating to the soil stack were being dealt with by the legal disrepair team.
2. The soil stack was repaired in February 2022 due to damage caused by high winds and storms.
3. Following a report from the resident that the soil stack was leaking, the contractor had attended and discovered an issue related to an overflow from another property in the building. The stack itself was not leaking and no repair was required to it.
4. The balcony floor area had been inspected by the independent surveyor who confirmed there were no works required. The landlord said that this was part of a disrepair case, and it was still waiting for a copy of the building surveyors report.
About the scaffolding not being erected during work undertaken by the contractor the landlord said:
1. The contractor’s alleged abuse of the resident’s son could not be proven due to the lack of independent witnesses. However, it apologised for any distress caused.
2. The landlord’s maintenance supervisor had been informed and the matter would be investigated internally ‘as required’ to avoid any similar experiences.
3. There was no report from the contractor relating to this matter.
About the cleaning contractor not using protective coverings and spreading sewage across the resident’s carpets the landlord confirmed that the cleaning contractor had attended the property on 24 February 2022 and again on 22 March 2022 to clean the balcony. However, it had no available evidence relating to damage caused. The landlord apologised to the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused and the resident was provided with contact information for the landlord’s insurance team.
In addition, the landlord explained that it had a backlog in its repair work due to COVID-19 as between March 2020 and April 2021 it had operated a reduced repairs service. This resulted in delays for which it recognised the time, effort, and inconvenience this may have caused.
In addition, the landlord explained that it had a backlog in its repair work due to COVID-19as between March 2020 and April 2021 it had operated a reduced repairs service. This resulted in delays for which it recognised the time, effort, and inconvenience this may have caused.
The landlord offered the resident £550 redress broken down as follows:
1. £150 in recognition of any service failures including unavailable reports and support evidence from contractors, including time effort and inconvenience in bringing the matter to the landlord’s attention.
2. £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint from stage 1 to stage 2.
3. £250 as a good will gesture in recognition of any distress caused by the contractor’s behaviour towards the resident and his son.
4. £100 as a good will gesture relating to any damage done to the property by the cleaning contractor.
After the final response letter, the resident provided this Service with a statement from his son that said:
1. The contractor had attended during March 2022 to complete a repair.
2. It put up a long ladder and attempted to fix the soil stack using this.
3. Afterwards they told him to tell anyone that asked that they used scaffold.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that all matters regarding the soil pipe and balcony would be dealt with by the legal representatives involved in the disrepair claim.
On 9 September 2023 resident advised the landlord that when the cleaning contractor had attended to clean the balcony and did so without wearing any protective clothing such as boot covers. To access the balcony the contractor had to walk in and out across the resident’s carpeted bedroom and no floor coverings were used. Images were provided to the landlord of the cleaning contractor outside on the balcony undertaking cleaning work using what the resident described as a ‘filthy cloth’ and wearing no protective coverings on their shoes.
Between September 2022 and March 2023, the resident chased the landlord on at least 2 occasions, once via this Service and once via his local Councillor to find out when work would be done to the soil stack.
The landlord raised a job for the soil stack replacement on 6 March 2022. This job is marked on the landlord’s repair records as complete on 30 March 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a repair required to the property soil stack.

When the soil stack was reported as having ‘opened up’ on 18 February 2022 it is not clear from the landlord’s records what repair took place and when. Whilst it is not disputed that a contractor attended and made a repair, it would be expected that the landlord’s records show evidence of an emergency repair, assessment and / or follow on work that might be required to fully resolve the reported matter. Instead, the landlord’s records are silent about what activities took place in February and March 2022 in relation to the soil stack repair. Due to this a record keeping finding is made below.
The landlord received a report from the building’s surveyor relating to the stack being poorly fitted to the wall and at risk of collapse at the end of August 2022. Despite the wording of the report being stark, and that the new stack was at risk of ‘collapse’, the recommendations were not acted on until scaffolding was installed in March 2023 with the job being marked as completed on 30 March 2023, some 7 months after the building surveyor’s report. This was an inappropriate timeframe to act on this health and safety risk, which presented both a risk to public health through further release of sewage, as well as a risk of harm due to the stack detaching from the wall and falling.
Whilst the landlord’s contractor did attend to attempt the resolve the repair followings the residents report in February or March 2022, issues remained with the standard of the finished work. When these issues were assessed by an independent building surveyor in August 2022 and confirmed, there was a 7 month delay to complete the repair. Therefore, this Service finds maladministration and an appropriate order will be made below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about its contractor.

The resident complained to the landlord about poor practices by its contractor who he said did not use scaffolding to conduct a repair to the soil stack which then resulted in a period of disrepair to the stack and repeated exposure of the resident to sewage. Whilst this Service is not able to say whether or not scaffolding was used to complete the repair it can consider the actions of the landlord when the resident raised this issue with it.
When notified of a poor quality of finish on the soil stack on 18 March 2022 as part of the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not attend to inspect the soil stack and investigate the resident’s reports as would have been appropriate for it to do so. This is a failing by the landlord to proactively seek to identify and understand the issues causing the resident reason to complain.
Through the complaints process, the landlord sought to respond to the resident about the contractor’s workmanship. However, in addition to not visiting the property to inspect the soil stack, no evidence has been provided that the landlord took any other investigative steps before issuing its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made enquiries following the resident’s reports by speaking with him further, speaking with other residents of the building and discussing the concerns with the contractor. This would ensure that it had all available facts before then making its own position clear in its complaints handling. In not undertaking any investigation into the resident’s concern the landlord failed to provide any reassurance to the resident that it took matter seriously. This amplified the resident’s view that the landlord ‘treated him badly’.
The landlord has sought to remedy the issue by offering £250 compensation and an apology to the resident. The Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests payments between £100 and £600 where there has been no permanent impact on the resident. Whilst the compensation and an apology do go some way towards addressing the issues that occurred, the landlord had not demonstrated that it took interest in the resident’s reports of unsafe practises by its contractors by taking reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports so it could provide a more detailed answer to his complaint which included any learning that it had identified through its investigation. Therefore, due to this, this investigation finds maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about its contractors.

The resident’s reports about the cleaning contractor.

The resident reported that the cleaning contractor had trodden sewage and bacteria onto the carpets in the property which had exacerbated the resident’s medical conditions and resulted in a fear of cooking in his home. As stated above, this Service cannot comment on any medical impact on the resident, however we can look at the landlord’s actions in relation to this report. Whilst the landlord’s repair records do show the attendance of the cleaning contractor as appropriate, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s report beyond advising that there was no evidence of damage to the carpets and signposting the resident to its insurers. In such an event, whilst the onus to provide evidence of dirt or damage to personal possessions does lie with the resident, it would have demonstrated good customer care to enquire further with the resident about any damage, by requesting descriptions and / or photographs of any damage, visiting the property as part of a wider investigation into the complaint. By completing such an investigation, the landlord would be able to use any gathered information in discussion with the cleaning contractor and in providing a complaint response. As it is, the landlord did not ask the resident to provide evidence of the issue before stating that there was no evidence and signposting him to its insurers. Whilst this position could be appropriate, it would be reasonable to have made enquiries before taking this stance, so to ensure the resident felt and was listened to.
In its complaint handling the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for damaged items. In doing so the landlord accepted that its contractors may have damaged items belonging to the resident, even without any evidence of said damage. This was a reasonable stance for the landlord to take and demonstrated a resolution focused approach. The Ombudsman notes that it would have demonstrated good practice by the landlord if it had detailed what steps it was taking to ensure that, going forward, it would not make similar service failures. However, the landlord’s overall response was fair.

The associated complaint.

On 4 March 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He received no acknowledgement from the landlord until he contacted it again on 18 March 2022 to raise his complaint again and to add additional information. This is a failing by the landlord to adhere to its policy to acknowledge the resident’s complaint no later than 5 working days and to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
When the stage 1 response was sent on 29 March 2022 the resident requested an escalation on the same day. He received acknowledgement of his escalation request however no response was forthcoming until contact was made with the landlord via this Service on 10 August 2022 when the landlord acknowledged the escalation request for a second time. At this point there had been a 92 working day wait for this escalation. This is a clear failing by the landlord to adhere to its policy that says it will escalate a complaint and respond within 20 working days.
In addition, a core element of the resident’s complaint related to the overall repair to the soil stack for which a report had been produced on 17 August 2022 as part of the pre-court protocol. The landlord’s stage 2 letter dated 1 September 2022 said that it had not had sight of this report prior to sending the response. The report and the stage 2 letter contradict each other on the matter of the soil stack. The report states that the stack needed to be completely rebuilt and was in danger of coming away from the building, whilst the stage 2 response asserted that no repairs were required to the soil stack. With this in mind, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 in an incorrect and contradictory way and in doing so failed to provide a detailed and quality stage 2 response.
As the response was sent without the most up to date information on the condition of the soil stack, the landlord was then unable to set out an appropriate and reasonable timeframe for any of the repairs recommended in the report. As is set out in 5.16 of the Ombudsman’s code, it would be reasonable for a stage 2 complaint response to set out what additional repairs are required to remedy the repair to the soil stack and when the resident could expect such repair to take place.
It is noted that the complaint response coincided with an ongoing disrepair claim for which pre-court protocol was being followed. It is positive that the landlord continued to follow its complaints process alongside discussions between its legal team and that of the resident. This is because the complaints process can be used as an alternative to the courts to resolve disputes between landlord and resident. However, the landlord’s complaint response fell short at stage 2 with matters relating to the completion of recommended repair work to the stack being deferred to the landlord’s legal team without progress being made on the completion of identified repairs.
In addition, by not overseeing the recommended repair the resident continued to experience issues after the final response letter, with long delays and lack of communication after the final response letter. This issue therefore remained on going for the resident, resulting in him incurring additional time and trouble to seek further support in getting the repair completed, evidenced in his requests for assistance from both this Service and his local counsellor. The repair was eventually completed on 30 March 2023, more than 12 months after the initial report.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right by offering the resident.
1. £50 for the delayed complaint response.
2. An apology.
However, this amount is not proportionate to the complaint handling failings identified in this report. As a result, a finding of maladministration has been made for the landlord’s complaint handling for the following reasons:
1. It failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in its published timeframe.
2. It failed to respond at stage 2 within its published timeframe.
3. It failed to provide a detailed stage 2 response using all the information available to it at the time.
4. It failed to outline a plan to resolve repair work by providing timeframes for the completion of any required work and then monitoring for the work’s completion.

Record Keeping

The evidence reviewed as part of this investigation shows issues with the landlord’s record keeping in regard to its handling of reports of disrepair and then the actions of its contractors in relation to the soil stack disrepair. It is noted that within the landlord’s repairs logs, the date, scope, and outcome of work undertaken to the soil stack is not available.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken which then aids it in service delivery and to be able to respond professionally and knowledgeable when something goes wrong. In this case, it would also have assisted with transparency as the resident repeatedly requested more information in relation to the landlord’s actions relating to his repair which the landlord was unable to provide. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
The landlord showed recognition of issues caused by the inappropriate record keeping in its offer of £150 compensation to the resident. Whilst the inability of the landlord to provide records or to use them to form an adequate complaint response caused distress for the resident, the compensation amount is proportionate in terms of the impact on the resident, who was not permanently impacted by the landlord’s poor record keeping. However, the landlord has not evidenced any steps it took to put things right or to learn from the resident’s complaint, such as confirming the use of post inspection forms and what the expectations were in terms of both its record keeping and that of work given to contractors. Given this, the landlord failed to give reasonable redress and a maladministration finding is made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled a repair to the property soil stack.
In accordance with paragraph 52 in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about its contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s reports about the cleaning contractor prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The repair to the soil stack took 7 months from when it was recommended by an independent building surveyor.
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports about its contractor in an inquisitive manner.
The landlord provided the resident with the opportunity to make a claim for damages via insurers. Whilst it did not complete a detailed investigation it did take the resident’s version of events and offered a reasonable payment to seek to reimburse the resident for any damage.
The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy and respond to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 in an appropriate timeframe. It failed to seek all relevant information available to it so it could provide a considered and detailed stage 2 complaint response. It did not set out a timeframe or oversee the completion of repair work related to the substantive issue of complaint.
The landlord failed to keep adequate repair records in relation to repairs to the soil stack in February and March 2022.

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of receipt of this report, the landlord pays in addition to the £550 already offered through its complaints process a further £1000 made up of:
1. £500 for delays in replacing the soil stack.
2. £100 for how it handled the resident’s reports about the contractor.
3. £400 for how it handled the associated complaint.
It is ordered that an appropriate senior member of staff contacts the resident with an apology within 4 weeks of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to within 8 weeks of receiving this report review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. The landlord should review and incorporate best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. Ensuring its records accurately reflect work undertaken by contractors.
2. Ensuring that databases are capable of adequately capturing information about repairs.