Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202229415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229415

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

12 December 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 handling of essential works to remove and control mould in the property
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy of a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
The resident lives at the property with her partner and 3 children. The resident has a diagnosed mental health condition. All members of the household have asthma. The resident’s youngest child has severe asthma, which was difficult to manage. According to evidence seen, the resident had made the landlord aware of the vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord has told this Service, it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 September 2022. The resident indicated that problems with mould were getting worse and were ongoing. The resident wanted the landlord to find a resolution or move her to alternative accommodation. The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 September 2022. It noted that it had considered a previous complaint about mould in 2020. It said if the mould had returned, this should be raised with its repairs team in the first instance. If the resident remained dissatisfied after this, she could raise a formal complaint.
The resident sought advice from this Service on 3 October 2022, who suggested that the resident work with the landlord to resolve the complaint. This Service asked the landlord to confirm its position in regard to the new complaint. On 4 October 2022, the landlord logged a new complaint about damp and mould. It arranged a case conference for 18 October 2022, where it agreed next steps.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had dealt with a previous complaint about mould in 2020 and attached a copy of its stage 2 response.
2. It had raised a property inspection for 14 October 2022, however it was unable to gain access. It would attend the property with its contractor on 31 October 2022, to discuss the issues and raise any works orders. It would also arrange for its heating contractors to conduct a gas heating survey, to ensure that the heating was working properly and was sufficient. Dedicated members of staff from its resident involvement and customer experience teams would monitor completion of identified works.
3. It recognised the resident had applied to go on the local authority rehousing waiting list. It enclosed a copy of its housing options leaflet which explained other options for rehousing. It also provided a copy of its managing condensation leaflet.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2023. The resident said the landlord had done nothing since its visit on 20 January 2023. She said she could not read or write well but wanted to escalate the complaint. The following day, the landlord helped the resident complete a complaint panel review request form. On 13 March 2023, the resident confirmed that she wanted the complaint to progress to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 June 2023, after being chased by the resident. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. In recognition of inconvenience caused, the landlord offered a discretionary “goodwill payment” of £50.00.
2. Apologised for postponing 2 review panel meetings, which it attributed to a clash with annual leave and unexpected staff sickness.
3. Said that it had held the review meeting on 3 May 2023, which proceeded in the resident’s absence. It had tried to contact the resident when she did not join the meeting.
4. Set out a timeline, explaining the actions the landlord had taken since issuing the stage 1 response.
5. Said that it had inspected the property on 16 January 2023, following which it raised several works orders. Its inspection reinforced its view that the mould was caused by condensation. This view was supported by independent damp specialists in 2020.
6. Said that it had carried out a heating assessment on 22 May 2023, after 2 previous unsuccessful attempts to gain access. The assessment found that the existing radiators were of adequate size and output to heat the property.
7. Remarked that the resident had no credit on the meter at the time of the heating assessment and the heating was turned off when it inspected in December 2022. It appreciated that individual circumstances, the economy, and the fuel crisis might present challenges for residents. However, it pointed out that insufficient heating contributes to condensation, and created ideal conditions for mould spores to thrive. It suggested that the resident keep the internal temperature of the property between 18 and 21 degrees.
8. Said it had been unable to gain access to check the ventilation and see if a positive input ventilation system (PIV) could be fitted.
9. Said it had been unable to complete cavity wall investigations, after noting a cold spot in the lounge wall. On the first occasion, the resident did not provide access. On the second occasion its contractor only sent 1 operative.
10. Said it had inspected the condition of the roof. It had removed and re-bedded some ridge and valley tiles. However, this was unlikely to be a factor in the mould experienced, due to there being a flat above.
11. Said its contractor had booked appointments with the resident to carry out a mould wash and treatment. As its contractor had not been able to gain access on 3 occasions, the works order had been placed on hold.
12. Stated that on confirmation that a PIV could be fitted, it would arrange for the resident to be moved into alternative accommodation for 7 to 14 days to complete the work and treat the mould. However, if it was unable to provide a PIV, it would consider a ‘dry fogging’ service to kill and sanitise any mould spores throughout the flat.
13. Said it had already provided verbal advice and leaflets on managing damp and condensation. However, it now drew the resident’s attention to relevant information on its website in this regard.
14. Stated that it was committed to addressing factors within its control. However, it needed the resident to play her part in managing the heating and ventilation systems. It suggested that without cooperation, it would be difficult or impossible to eliminate condensation and mould within the property.
15. The landlord advised the resident to:
  1. Use the extractor fan in the kitchen, which was off at the time of the inspection.
  2. Keep radiators clear to allow air flow and keep the home heated.
  3. Consider support available from its financial inclusion team, to help with costs during the cost of living crisis. It said it had previously reassured the resident that modern extractor fans were extremely efficient and inexpensive to run.
  4. Allow access to complete outstanding investigations and works. It had previously reminded the resident of her obligation to give access, under the tenancy agreement. It said missed appointments caused delays and additional charges could be recharged.
16. Recognised that the resident was concerned about the health of her family and that she wanted a permanent move. The landlord said that the resident could make a direct application to its housing team, or it could make a referral on her behalf.
17. Set out an action plan, which it said would be overseen by a named member of staff. The action plan indicated that the cavity wall inspection and the PIV survey had been rearranged for 30 June 2023. The mould treatment was on hold, subject to the outcome of the PIV survey.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint, the resident referred her complaint to this Service on 26 June 2022. The resident said that the landlord had attended the property without appointments. The resident had refused the landlord’s attempts to carry out a mould wash, because it was unsafe to complete this work with her family in occupation due to health conditions. The resident said that the property was uninhabitable, which had been backed up by medical opinion. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted an urgent management move, compensation for loss of belongings, and compensation for time taken off work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident had reported unresolved damp and mould in the property since 2014. The resident had raised previous complaints with the landlord. On 27 March 2021, this Service found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property. Paragraph 42(1) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Housing Ombudsman may not consider matters that this Service has already decided upon. Accordingly, historical evidence provided by the resident, already considered by this Service, has not been considered as part of this investigation.
This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of essential works to remedy damp and mould between 24 March 2022 and 1 June 2023. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

The landlord’s handling of essential works to remove and control mould in the property

The landlord has a repairs policy, which sets out its approach to dealing with responsive repairs. Its aim is to complete all repairs in 1 visit or within as little time as possible. The policy states that the landlord will confirm an appointment with the resident for as soon as possible, and at a time that suits the resident.
During the investigation, this Service noted omissions and small discrepancies in the landlord’s records. For example, the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that a property inspection was instructed on 28 September 2022, for 14 October 2022. Whereas a repairs log indicates that an appointment was booked for 10 October 2022, which was cancelled on 14 October 2022. In a PDF provided to this Service by the landlord, a pre inspection survey was labelled 13 January 2022. Other evidence provided by the landlord indicates that this document related to a planned inspection scheduled for 21 January 2022. In this report, dates have been estimated where there are discrepancies.
After the resident reported that issues with mould had returned on 17 December 2021, it was appropriate that the landlord raised an inspection. The inspection was scheduled for 22 working days later, on 21 January 2022. This Service would have expected this inspection to have been carried out in a timelier manner. However, it is understood that the landlord had agreed the date of the inspection with the resident.
This Service notes that the landlord raised a works order on 18 December 2021, to carry out a mould wash. It is unclear why these works were ordered before the landlord had inspected the property. This could suggest an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. It has not been possible to determine based on fact, whether this mould wash was completed. However, later communication from the resident suggests it was not.
It was unfortunate that the landlord’s surveyor was unable to complete the property inspection on 21 January 2022, after becoming delayed by traffic. However, there is evidence that the landlord quickly rearranged the appointment for 26 January 2022, which was appropriate.
During the property inspection on 26 January 2022, the landlord recorded the flat as over occupied and noted an abundance of personal belongings. The landlord recognised that the resident was making efforts to manage the environment in the flat and had use of a dehumidifier. The landlord’s surveyor would have been aware of the history of mould issues within the property, the previous diagnosis, and the steps it had previously taken. While its inspection may have supported its previous view that the resurgence of mould was caused by condensation, attributed to overcrowding, this did not absolve the landlord from taking further action or considering further intervention.
This Service has no evidence that the landlord considered what more it could have done, or how else it could have supported the resident, following its inspection. If it thought that the cause of the mould was overcrowding, the landlord could have actively explored solutions such as a management move or a mutual exchange. It could have ensured that the resident was registered with the relevant housing authority for rehousing. The landlord’s inaction following the inspection was inappropriate and left the substantive issue unresolved.
It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. This can increase resident frustration and discomfort. However, it can also lead to problems worsening, becoming more complex, and more difficult to resolve. The impact of the recurrence of mould upon the resident and her family became apparent by May 2022. The resident reported missing work to care for her youngest child, who she said had been repeatedly admitted to hospital. The resident attributed this to the mould in the property. The resident indicated this had also caused financial hardship, causing the resident to fall into rent arrears. The landlord responded positively by offering to assist the resident in making an application for funds from its discretionary payment scheme. While the landlord’s rent team said it would raise matters with its repairs team, there is no evidence that its repairs team took any action. This Service considers this was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address the resident’s ongoing concerns and would have left the resident feeling unheard.
After speaking with the resident on 28 September 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging to reinspect the property on 14 October 2022. The resident’s failure to provide access would have delayed the landlord from reinvestigating the cause of the mould.
The landlord held a case conference on 18 October 2022, after receiving no response from the resident to its calling card. This was a sensible approach and showed commitment to finding a resolution. The landlord’s resultant action plan, which it shared with the resident in its stage 1 response, showed that it was giving the resident’s complaint the attention it deserved. It recognised that mould washes were proving ineffectual in preventing mould returning, and that a different solution needed to be found. It appropriately offered advice on rehousing and managing the mould, pending further investigation. Although the resident was made aware that the landlord would reinspect the property on 31 October 2022, the resident did not provide access.
After the resident challenged the landlord on 7 November 2022, regarding its perceived inaction, the landlord arranged a new property inspection with the resident for 30 November 2022. This was rearranged to 5 December 2022, when the resident again failed to provide access. Access was not achieved until 16 January 2023. The resident’s failure to provide access was unhelpful and prevented the landlord from determining what action or additional support it could offer.
However, after inspecting the property on 16 January 2023, this Service would have expected the landlord to have communicated with the resident in a timely manner, setting out its findings and proposing next steps. It was inappropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update 2 weeks later. Although the landlord told the resident on 10 February 2023, that its surveyor would provide an update, this Service has seen no evidence that this happened. As a result, the landlord’s communications were inadequate and were likely to have provided limited reassurance to the resident.
This Service encourages landlords to consider and take reasonable steps, in partnership with residents, where there are identified occupancy issues. The landlord recognised its responsibilities. In line with best practice, it set out to investigate whether it could improve the ventilation in the property, address cold spots, assess the adequacy of heating arrangements, and treat the mould. The landlord’s action plan was reasonable and proportionate. However, given that the landlord had recorded the scale of the mould as “extensive”, it was important that any follow on works or investigations were arranged as soon as possible. There is no evidence of any works orders being raised for a month. This was unreasonable and added avoidable delay. Ultimately, the landlord’s lack of urgency and poor communications, led to the resident escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord appointed a member of staff to track the progress of follow-on works, which was good practice. However, in view of the history of non-access and the potential language barriers, the landlord should have considered making this member of staff a ‘single point of contact’, to liaise with the resident, and coordinate access on behalf of all trades. It was likely to have been confusing for the resident, having several contractors and the landlord all trying to arrange appointments for different inspections at the same time.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors had varying success in gaining access to carry out the mould treatment and follow-on investigations, some of which remained outstanding at the time of this investigation. This Service considers there was an over reliance on the landlord’s contractors to book appointments with the resident, which proved ineffectual.
While the landlord considers that the resident repeatedly failed to provide access for prebooked appointments, the resident maintains that the landlord did not always provide her with prior notice. It has not been possible to determine based on fact, whether all scheduled appointments were confirmed by the resident. It is also noted that on 1 occasion, a prebooked appointment was not kept by the landlord. On another occasion, its contractor could not complete an inspection because the inspection required 2 operatives. This Service suggests that access arrangements were a challenge for both parties, although could have been lessened had the landlord appointed a single point of contact.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that where appropriate, landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving (decanting) the resident out of the property to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered. This is particularly important in cases where there are vulnerabilities within the household, such as in this case.
The landlord’s contractor fed back to the landlord on 23 February 2022, that the resident’s child was allergic to most chemicals used for treating mould. The resident told the landlord on 13 March 2023, that her child had been hospitalised in the past, after mould spores were released during cleaning. The resident said that the landlord should provide alternative accommodation while the mould treatment was being carried out.
In communications with its contractor on 17 March 2023, the landlord accepted that it might need to decant the resident to complete the mould treatment. The landlord confirmed its intention to investigate if a ventilation system could be installed and complete the mould wash at the same time. There is evidence that the landlord told the resident on 20 March 2023, that she would need to complete a decant form closer to the time. A GP wrote to the landlord on 25 April 2023, reminding the landlord that asthma was a cause of child death. The GP stated that mould in the property was placing the health of the resident’s child at considerable risk, and was likely to be exacerbating their asthma, which was difficult to keep under control.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord reaffirmed its approach to tackling mould in the property, in an email sent to a member of parliament. The landlord indicated that it was its intention to assess the ventilation first, following which it would decant the household. During the decant, it would treat the mould, complete associated works, and hopefully install a new positive input ventilation system. While this might have been a practical approach for the landlord to take, this would take time. In view of the level of risk described by resident’s GP a few days earlier, the landlord’s priority should have been to remove the household from immediate risk. Once decanted, it could have completed the outstanding investigations, and treated the mould. The landlord could have considered arranging a longer decant, or even a second decant, if it was necessary to complete follow-on works without the resident being in occupation. The landlord’s lack of agility was unreasonable, considering the confirmed vulnerabilities within the household.
Since completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process, the landlord gained access to the property on 31 July 2023, to complete a cavity wall inspection and wider damp survey. The survey concluded that the mould growth was likely associated with condensation-related issues. It made several recommendations, which included fitting a ventilation system, painting the walls with anti-mould paint, regularly cleaning the mould with a fungicidal wash, and other measures that the resident could take to help manage humidity levels. The landlord has told this Service that it had tried different methods to contact the resident to complete follow-on works. It said unless the resident was willing to communicate and allow access, it had exhausted all options of getting the matter resolved.
While it is clear that the landlord tenant relationship has broken down, it is important that the parties find a way to communicate and bring a resolution to the substantive issue. The landlord should consider involving third-party mediation and translation services, to reopen dialogue between the parties and find a resolution.
Although the resident’s preference may be for the landlord to agree a management move, the immediate priority for both parties must be to remove the immediate risk to the household, and in particular reduce the ongoing risk to the resident’s child. As the mould treatment cannot be completed while the resident’s child is in occupation, the landlord should secure a short-term temporary decant for the resident. Once decanted, the landlord can treat the mould and complete its investigations. The resident is contractually obliged to provide access for the purposes of allowing inspections and carrying out essential works. If the resident does not agree to be decanted, the landlord should consider taking robust action requiring access to the property.
Once the resident is decanted, the landlord and resident should work in partnership to agree an action plan. The landlord should recognise that finances are likely to be a physical or perceived barrier to the resident in controlling the mould. The landlord should be transparent about the running costs of any new mechanical ventilation system proposed, or similar. In recognising the link between fuel poverty, damp and mould, the landlord should again signpost the resident to relevant advice or support.
It is noted that the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team were reluctant to provide support to its repairs team in June 2023, which was a missed opportunity. This Service suggests that the landlord should reconsider its position on this, with a view to looking holistically at the sustainability of this tenancy. As part of this, the landlord should revisit the resident’s current housing need. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.
It is noted that the landlord introduced a new damp and mould framework and operating procedure sometime in 2023. It is unclear when the policy became operational. However, the policy states that where damp and mould present an immediate health risk to a resident due to their vulnerabilities, it will provide immediate intervention or will temporarily relocate the resident. This is a positive development for future cases and indicates that the landlord has taken learnings from sector good practice.
The failings identified in this report had a significant impact on the resident, in terms of distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to decant the resident and her family, left them at continued risk for an unreasonable period of time. This was particularly unreasonable given the resident’s child’s vulnerabilities. However, it is also accepted that the resident’s own actions were a contributory factor in this case, which created additional delay in resolving the substantive issue. While this Service was minded to make a determination of severe maladministration, on balance, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to remove and control mould in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints policy. The landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s response, the resident can request a review at stage 2. Stage 2 complaints will be considered by a review panel. The landlord will inform the resident of the panel’s decision within 10 working days of the panel meeting. However, if this is not possible, a response will be provided no later than 20 working days from the date of the review.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord may make a discretionary payment of between £50 and £250, in recognition of distress, time, trouble or inconvenience.
It was reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident’s contact on 24 September 2022, as a service enquiry. The landlord appropriately told the resident to raise her concerns with repair handlers in the first instance, to give it an opportunity to put things right. It rightly told the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response after this, she could raise a new complaint.
After the resident contacted this Service for advice on 3 October 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord on the same day, asking it to confirm the status of the complaint. The landlord responded by logging a new complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response, 12 working days later, which was slightly outside of its expected response time. The landlord’s response appropriately set out what the resident had complained about, what its investigation had found, next steps, and provided relevant guidance on managing condensation in the home. Recognising that the resident wanted to move, it provided information on options for rehousing. This was also appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023, stating that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2, but could not read or write well. The landlord responded appropriately by contacting the resident and completing a complaint panel review request form over the phone. The landlord then sent a copy of the completed form to the resident for review and further amending. In doing so, it made reasonable adjustments as part of its complaints process.
While the landlord set a date for the complaint review panel meeting for 19 April 2023, this was cancelled by the landlord at short notice. After rearranging the meeting for 28 April 2023, the landlord again cancelled the meeting at short notice. The complaint was later heard on 3 May 2023. It is appreciated that unforeseen events can sometimes arise. However, landlords should have processes in place to respond to eventualities such as sickness and annual leave, to ensure that the resolution of a complaint is not unreasonably delayed. Resulting delays caused the resident frustration, as well as increased time and trouble.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the review panel meeting. In line with its policy, the landlord provided a response within 19 working days. However, overall, there was 54 working days between the resident escalating her complaint on 13 March 2023, and the landlord issuing the stage 2 response. This exceeded the expected response time set out under its policy and prevented the resident from bringing her complaint to this Service earlier. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately set out the resident’s complaint, what its investigation found, its decision and next steps. The landlord provided practical advice on managing humidity in the property. It showed consideration for the resident’s personal circumstances, by offering financial support from its financial inclusion team and also support with rehousing. It recognised that there were delays in its complaint handling for which it offered £50 compensation. However, the landlord did not recognise any failings or detriment caused to the resident by its handling of the substantive issue. It is the opinion of this Service, that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not fully reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the failings identified in this investigation.
While this Service was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable omissions and discrepancies in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep robust records and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Given the vulnerabilities in the household, it is of concern that the landlord told this Service that there were no vulnerabilities. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate, and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management fell short.
When considered cumulatively, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to remove and control mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £750 to the resident, which is reduced to £700 if the landlord has already paid the compensation previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £600 in compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the handling of works to remove and control mould in the property.
2. £150 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s distress, time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling and record keeping.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Endeavour to secure alternative accommodation, which it must offer the resident as a temporary decant (as a minimum), as a matter of urgency.
2. Endeavour to meet with the resident to discuss next steps, respond to the resident’s concerns, offer additional support as may be relevant, and agree an action plan to resolve the substantive issue. The landlord should consider adopting a mediated approach, using a third-party mediator and translation services.
3. If the resident returns to the property following the decant and completion of follow-on works, the landlord must provide the resident with a schedule of periodic monitoring. The schedule should be agreed with the resident and carried out by the landlord thereafter. The resident should provide access to allow the landlord to complete this. In the event that mould returns, the landlord should act appropriately and expediently.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange for an appropriate manager to initiate and complete a review of the issues identified in this case and identify any learnings. Where learnings are identified, the landlord should commit to bringing improvements into its operations within 3 months of the date of its review. As a minimum, the landlord must consider:
1. Its procedure for arranging inspections and follow-on works, in complex cases such as this, where English is not the resident’s first language.
2. Its record keeping in this case and the accuracy of information provided to this Service. The landlord should consider how it presents information to this Service, so that the landlord’s actions are clearly evidenced.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.