Clarion Housing Association Limited (202208650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208650

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her bathroom and kitchen.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Summary of events

3. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord started in October 2020. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The landlord told the Ombudsman it did not have any disabilities recorded for the resident. However, the repair record shows the resident reported she was disabled in March 2021.
4. In March 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in the area near her bathroom and kitchen.
5. On 30 March 2021, the landlord noted that the resident sought urgent repairs to her bathroom floor as she was pregnant and had mobility issues. The resident said the repairs were supposed to have been completed the previous week but the engineer did not attend. The operative who noted the call said they thought there might have been a mistake as two days were needed to complete the repairs but it had only been booked for one day.
6. In September 2021, the resident had a baby.
7. A mould wash was scheduled for 27 October 2021 but the resident told the landlord that the operatives who attended “forgot” to do this. The resident said they did so even though she had reminded them at lunchtime that they needed to complete the mould wash.
8. In November 2021, when a health visitor attended, the landlord recorded that she had observed “damp and mould throughout the property”. A note was made on the landlord’s repair record to find the reason for the problem, perform a mould wash and to report back. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about her two-month old baby, who had health issues.
9. A mould wash was arranged for 23 November 2021. However, this appointment was cancelled and rearranged for 9 December 2021 without the resident being informed. She was not available for the new appointment. She complained about the failure to complete the mould wash. The landlord accepts it failed to respond to her complaint.
10. An inspection to assess the issues was carried out on 20 December 2021 and a recommendation made to arrange repair works. However, the landlord accepts the repairs did not go ahead. It said it was sorry that this had happened and for any inconvenience caused.
11. On 3 March 2022, the resident formally complained again. She said she was upset her complaint in November 2021 had not been responded to and said she was now unable to fully use the kitchen or another room (it was unclear from her complaint which room) in the property. She said there were mice in the property and, even though a surveyor had visited, nothing had been done about the issues she complained about.
12. On 17 March 2022, a repair job was arranged to complete the following:
    1. Assess cavity wall insulation. If wet, remove, allow the cavity wall to dry and reinsulate.
    2. Rake out and repoint the rear wall under the kitchen/bathroom.
13. On 24 March 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint. The key points were:
    1. It apologised that the works arranged to go ahead at the end of 2021 did not go ahead.
    2. It accepted that works were outstanding, including:
       1. Raking out and repointing.
       2. Upgrading the bathroom fan and inspecting the kitchen for a replacement.
       3. Inspecting the vinyl in the bathroom for replacement following a toilet leak.
       4. Reinstating boxing in the bathroom.
       5. Inspection for leaks in the kitchen and bathroom wastepipes.
       6. Assessing the cavity wall and install airbrick if required.
       7. French drain installation for the length of the front elevation.
       8. Blocking holes where vermin were accessing the property.
    3. It said the above works had been scheduled to be completed on 7 April 2022.
    4. It accepted there had been “significant delay” in completing the relevant works and apologised, offering the resident £175 in compensation. This included a payment of £25 for its late response to her complaint.
    5. It said, if she had arrears on her account, it would offset the payment against those. Otherwise, the money would be paid directly to her bank account.
14. The works did not go ahead on 7 April 2022 and the resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 13 April 2022. She also complained that there had been no communication about the failure to complete the works. Specifically, she said that:
    1. The raking and repointing had not been done.
    2. No follow up appointment had been made for the bathroom floor.
    3. The boxing in the bathroom had not been completed.
    4. The inspection for leaks had just been done ‘by eye’ and the operative refused to check the boxing because he said he did not have enough time allocated for the work.
    5. She could now see green mould all around the back wall of the property and that it was now appearing behind the cooker.
15. She asked if it might be sensible to place a French drain at the back of the property as well as the front.
16. On 9 May 2022, the resident called the landlord. She said she was worried about the negative impact on health that the mould could be causing. She said she no longer allowed her two children to go in the kitchen and that the patch of mould had now spread to the next wall and onto her tiles.
17. Internal notes show that a senior member of the landlord’s team reported he was “…disappointed…because we’ve failed to follow up on the agreed actions from the stage one.” He said all the outstanding works would need to be “expediated” and the landlord might have to consider decanting the resident.
18. On 17 May 2022, a member of the landlord’s staff prepared a list of works still outstanding:
    1. The boxing and sealing around boxing.
    2. The checks for leaks around kitchen and bathroom wastepipes
    3. The raking out and repointing of the exterior wall.
19. The above works were scheduled to be completed on 20 May 2022. On that date, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident. The landlord fully accepted there had been a “significant service failure”. It accepted it had failed to communicate with the resident when it failed to attend appointments. It said it was disappointed it had not completed the works when it said it would and offered the resident a further £300 in compensation for that failure.
20. The reviewer said the landlord had a ‘first time fix’ policy and he was disappointed that the operative who came to investigate the cause of the leak/damp said he did not have enough time to do that. He accepted this was a service failure.
21. The response accepted that the resident had been experiencing the same issues since she first started complaining about them in September 2021 and offered a further £100 compensation for failing to complete a follow up job with the bathroom flooring and as an acknowledgement of the poor service the resident had received.
22. It also said the “…communication and organisation of the repair works had not met basic standards” and arranged for a senior manager to contact the resident, visit the property and fully scope and discuss the on-going works. The manager was also to consider whether or not a temporary decant to a hotel or alternative accommodation was needed.
23. The landlord also offered a further £250 goodwill payment to reflect the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident and her family, bringing the total offered to £650.
24. The scheduled works did not go ahead on 20 May 2022. The records do not indicate why.
25. On 16 June 2022, an operative attended to complete the repointing but said the area was too large for the hours set aside to complete the job. The works were raised again to be completed on 7 July 2022, however, this was cancelled the following day. The records are unclear why this happened. The manager who was supposed to visit said there had been some access issues. This account is contradicted by the resident who said she had no communication from the landlord following the stage two response.
26. On 28 July 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman that some of the landlord’s claims about works done were incorrect. She said the landlord’s stage two response claims that the boxing pipework and the assessment of the cavity wall had been completed were not correct. She asked for the Ombudsman to look at her complaint.
27. In March 2023, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the work outstanding from the initial complaint had been completed. This included the cavity wall assessment and the repointing. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked for evidence to show the dates the works were completed. The landlord replied that the works had not been completed.
28. In its initial response, the landlord had also told the Ombudsman that while the initial complaint issues had been dealt with, a “recent inspection” had found a “new issue” related to repointing and this was being referred to planned investment.
29. The Ombudsman made further enquiries about the repointing that the landlord said was a “new issue”. It transpired that it was not a new issue. The landlord said that the raking and repointing had not been completed and it related to a job which had been raised to be completed on 20 May 2022.
30. The landlord said the work had been raised again as a works order on 12 February 2023. The records show that the operative who visited on that date reported that the “…end wall to property needs to be repointed as in a very poor condition approximately 20 square [metres] and is causing the [mould] issue.”
31. A surveyor that attended the property on 14 March 2023 said that the pointing was in very poor shape. He said he tested some wall areas in the living room and most lower-level areas were “reading wet”. He asked what other surveyors had attended and if there were any other reports available. The Ombudsman also asked to see these reports but the landlord said it did not have a copy of any previous report.
32. In response to this service’s enquiries about whether the resident had been decanted from the property at any point, the landlord was unable to say.
33. The landlord has completed a recent survey of the property. It says it does not have evidence that a referral was made for the repointing work in March 2023. It has also identified other works but they are generally new issues and fall outside the scope of this complaint. This is with the exception of replacing the bathroom flooring, which the landlord says has recently been addressed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her bathroom and kitchen

34. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 10 (1) sets out a number of factors that help determine whether a house is fit for human habitation or not. These include freedom from damp and having facilities for the preparation and cooking of food.  Added to that list is also ‘any prescribed hazard’.
35. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classes damp and mould as category one hazards. These are the most serious hazards with the potential to cause the greatest harm. The risks associated with poor management of damp and mould cases were highlighted by this Service in a spotlight report published in October 2021, (“the Spotlight report”). In that report, we set out how important it is for landlords to ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
36. In this case, the resident, who is disabled and, at the time of reporting, was pregnant, first reported damp and mould in the property in March 2021. It was not effectively addressed and by November 2021 her health visitor was reporting that the damp and mould was “throughout” the property. This was shortly after the birth of her child and should have prompted an urgent and comprehensive response from the landlord. Instead, the resident was forced to repeatedly complain before she was responded to. The repair policy that the landlord was supposed to adhere to at the time said that, for non-emergency repairs, it would offer a resident an appointment within 28 days and it aimed to complete a ‘first time fix’.  While there is no prescribed time in law for making repairs, two years and five months later, this has still not been remedied, which is not reasonable. This delay is a failure to comply with the landlord’s legal obligations to keep the property in good repair, a failure to meet its own service standards and an inappropriate response to reports about a category one hazard. It is unreasonable delay.
37. In February 2023 the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that the mould issue in the property was being caused by the poor condition of the property’s walls. The landlord had known, certainly as far back as March 2022, that the property’s walls needed repointing and so it is unacceptable that the cause of the mould and the damp in the property was allowed to remain unattended for such a protracted period of time. During this time the resident was afraid to allow her children to use the kitchen because of the potential hazard and she would have been understandably concerned about any health issues. It must also have been very frustrating to find herself unable to rely on any promises of repair that the landlord made, given its repeated failures to follow these up.
38. At the initial reporting stages, repointing was required for the kitchen and bathroom rear wall. By the time the surveyor visited in February 2023 three sides of the building needed repointing. This is why early diagnosis and early remedy is crucial. As the landlord was not able to provide past surveyors’ reports, it is not possible to say for certain that the failure to address the initial report of damp in the property led to an eventual report of three sides of the property requiring repointing and wet readings at most lower levels; but it is reasonable to conclude that may well be the case.
39. It is noteworthy that the March 2023 surveyor also wanted to view the previous survey reports and it is likely that he too wanted to understand how such a large area required repointing but not been addressed despite previous survey visits.
40. The resident regularly informed the landlord of her concerns. As mentioned earlier, she complained in November 2021, and received no response. Works were due to go ahead in October and in December 2021 which did not happen. She complained again in March 2022. She was so concerned that she told the landlord she was not able to fully use the kitchen and another room in the property.  The landlord apologised and again arranged works for April 2022. Again, these did not go ahead. Works arranged for May and then June and July 2022 did not go ahead. This Service notes that on two occasions, they did not go ahead because the operative, upon arriving, realised that the works needed more time than had been scheduled for. The level of work needed should have already been understood and rather than cancelling the works, it should have alerted the landlord to the scale of the problem and the need to act with a sense of urgency. The senior manager who responded to the stage two complaint in May 2022 said, at that stage, the works should be “expediated” but again this did not happen, which was another missed opportunity. He also considered that, as the resident said the mould had spread, it might be necessary to decant the resident. There is no evidence that this suggestion was followed up or explored. The landlord appears to have lost track of the management of the complaint at this stage, which is inappropriate. The resident would have been waiting for the works to begin, again. She was concerned about the spread of the damp and unable to trust that it would be remedied in any reasonable timeframe.
41. The promised works did not go ahead again and the resident says the manager that the stage two response had promised would visit, did not attend. He reported that he could not get access on the arranged date but this was not followed up.  Nothing was done to further investigate or deal with the issues until surveyors attended in February 2023 and March 2023. Even after these visits, there is no evidence a referral has been made to complete works that have been outstanding for over a year and a half and have been determined as being the cause of damp and mould that appears to have penetrated other areas of the house since the initial report. Even if, because of poor record management, the landlord understood this to be a “new issue”, it is inappropriate that it failed to respond appropriately again. However, it was not a new issue and therefore the landlord’s failure to attend to it for such a long time is inappropriate.
42. In response to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, the landlord developed a Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy, (“the Policy”). It is dated February 2023. Among other things, it said that, where repair cases relate to damp and mould, it would specifically track and manage the work. It said, where particularly severe or recurring mould issues are identified, it would undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which could result in a range of actions including funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems etc.  While the resident’s early reports of damp and mould were made before the implementation of this policy, the Ombudsman would still expect the landlord to have responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould. As set out above, it failed to respond appropriately or at all, other than in complaint responses that promised work which was then not completed.
43. Even after the implementation of the Policy, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s complaints about mould. The Policy says, in cases where recurring mould issues are identified, it would undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. The resident reported recurring mould issues in this case but there is no record to show she was offered dehumidifiers or that decanting was considered again or any other steps. There is no record of a risk assessment. Although the landlord told the Ombudsman it had made a referral to arrange the works, it has been unable to produce any evidence the referral was made. There are issues with record keeping here, which will be explored below. But also, crucially, there appears to be no sense of urgency to deal with serious repair issues, which in the circumstances, is unreasonable and inappropriate.
44. There were other works that were not completed as claimed. Following further enquiry from the Ombudsman, the landlord has now said that a number of works that were supposed to be completed or claimed to have been completed, have not been completed. Below is a table setting out a list of works that were not completed despite being complained about or raised over a year ago.  It is inappropriate that they have not been addressed. It will have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and her family. She is disabled and the worry and concern she will have had living in these conditions for a prolonged period will naturally have been a strain. Taken all the failures to repair together, this service has made a finding of severe maladministration.

45. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.  In this case the Ombudsman finds that the impact on the resident has been significant and over an extended period.
46. The resident has paid approximately £469 per month in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started in March 2021, which is shortly after the resident requested urgent repairs to her bathroom floor having said that operatives had failed to complete scheduled repairs. The landlord offered £150 for that period and this service considers it should have offered more. We have set out why the Ombudsman has made an order for a higher sum in the section on complaint handling below.
47. From May 2022, the landlord was indisputably aware that the resident had said she could not allow her children to use the kitchen and there were also concerns about another room in the property. At this point, this service considers it is appropriate for the landlord to pay a further sum of compensation which recognises the loss of the full use of the property or that it did not demonstrate an assessment of her concerns to determine if any part of the property was unsafe or uninhabitable as claimed.
48. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident since June 2022, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £2600 compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her property. This figure has been calculated as approximately 40% of the total rent during the period in question. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
49. The Ombudsman also requires that, when the landlord has completed the relevant works required in this Determination, it should also consider whether further compensation should be offered, taking into account the Ombudsman’s comments and findings in this Determination. The landlord should confirm its intentions with respect to this within eight weeks of the date of this Determination, including whether a decant is necessary for the works to be completed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

50. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a range of awards available for service failure. At the lower end of its range, it says it will pay residents between £50 and £250 for failures like failing to reply to letters or return phone calls. It says it will award between £250 and £700 for cases where there is more considerable failure, such as a failure, over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy. It says an example of this would be a failure to address repairs.
51. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (“the code”), at paragraph 6.2, sets out that any remedy offered to residents in the complaints process, must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The offer of a total of £175 at stage one of the complaint’s process did not do this. By this stage of the process, in March 2022, the landlord had missed an appointment, failed to complete arranged mould washes, failed to action works arranged and failed to respond to a formal complaint. Having reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy, the payment offered did not reflect the level of service failure experienced by the resident. While the landlord acknowledged there had been “significant delay” in completing the works, its compensation policy indicates that a higher payment should have been offered to properly acknowledge the overall service failure experienced.
52. This service considers the offer of redress should have been within the higher range at this stage and it was inappropriate for its complaints process not to have identified a remedy that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its actions.
53. At stage two of the complaints process, it is clear from the internal notes made by the reviewer that the landlord appropriately reflected on its failures and it strongly expressed that it was disappointed it had failed the resident again and not completed the works promised at stage one of the process. It accepted “significant service failure”. It accepted it had not met basic standards and that the resident had been experiencing issues since September 2021 that had still not been resolved. It is commendable that it did not shy away from acknowledging its service failures at this stage and that it offered a further £650 in recognition of this.
54. On paper, the stage two response was very much in line with the type of effective dispute resolution recommended by the code. It acknowledged where things had gone wrong, it provided an explanation, it apologised, arranged to remedy the issues by arranging repairs again and provided a financial remedy.
55. However, as the landlord then failed to complete the works and has still not completed them, the stage two response did not improve matters for the resident. The code stresses that any remedy proposed must be followed through and this did not happen, which is inappropriate.
56. Some of the works that the landlord said had been completed in its stage two response had not actually been completed. The resident said the reviewer failed to check with her and, if this had happened, she would have been able to explain that the boxing pipework and the wall cavity assessment had not gone ahead. This failure was inappropriate. It must have been frustrating for the resident to have been told works had gone ahead when she was aware that was not the case.
57. Taken altogether, while the landlord’s complaint responses said the right things, there was a disconnect between what complaint handlers said would happen to remedy service failures and what actually happened. This meant that the resident was repeatedly given an expectation that her issues would be resolved when they were repeatedly not resolved. This was damaging for the landlord/tenant relationship. We have made a finding of maladministration and recommended a further payment to acknowledge this.

The landlord’s approach to record keeping

58. The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records. As set out above, it informed the resident that works had been completed when they had not. Most importantly, the cause of the damp and mould – the repointing – had not been addressed. But the landlord told the Ombudsman that this was a new issue. This was not the case and indicates that the landlord has unreliable systems for recording or tracking vital information about how repairs are progressing or not.
59. 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 and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. Given the above, the landlord’s repairs record keeping was inappropriate.
60. The landlord also failed to keep records made by surveyors about the issues throughout the period. This failure has made the Ombudsman’s investigation difficult and undoubtably affected the landlord’s response to the repair work throughout the period.
61. It is also serious because landlords should learn from events when things go wrong. As the landlord did not recognise that the repointing was an old issue that had still not been remedied, it is unlikely it would reflect on why this had not been addressed before. It also appears that it did not address the issue with any sense of urgency, perhaps because it considered it to be ‘new’.
62. It is also concerning that the landlord told the Ombudsman that the resident had no vulnerabilities. This was not the case and this service has ordered a review of the landlord’s systems to record vulnerabilities or disabilities so that its approach to prioritising works can be more responsive to an individual resident’s circumstances.
63. Therefore, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. Given the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Determination (decision)

64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about issues with damp and mould.
65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
66. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping.

Reasons

67. The landlord was, or should have been, aware that a disabled resident and her young children were living in a property which had damp “throughout” in November 2021. It repeatedly missed opportunities to address the cause of that damp – poor repointing. It has still not addressed that issue and it is likely that over time the damp penetrated more areas of the property. The resident and her young family have lived and are now living in a property with “wet readings” at most lower levels and in the living room. It is unacceptable that the landlord failed to diagnose, address and remedy a hazardous issue for over a year and a half. It also failed to repair other issues in the property while repeatedly promising to do so.
68. At first view, the landlord’s complaint handling appeared to be in line with the code. It acknowledged failures and proposed remedies. However, ultimately, it failed to properly recognise what works had and had not been completed, it offered unsatisfactory financial compensation and it promised works would be completed to remedy the issues that then did not go ahead. This raised and frustrated the resident’s expectations, leading her to take her case to the Ombudsman.
69. The landlord failed to keep records of survey reports and inspections. It failed to recognise what works had and had not been completed and it informed the Ombudsman that works had been completed when they had not. This reveals a serious failing in record keeping and likely contributed to the landlord’s failure to have a structured and appropriate focus on repair works that were necessary and repeatedly asked for by the resident. It also failed to keep accurate records about the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

70. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident the sum of £4100 which includes the compensation already offered by the landlord. It should be paid within four weeks and is comprised of:
    1. £600 to acknowledge the period of maladministration from September 2021 to May 2022, when the resident’s reports of damp and mould were not attended to.
    2. £2600 to acknowledge that, because of a failure to address the cause of damp and mould at the property, the resident and her young family have not had the full enjoyment of her property for a prolonged period.
    3. £400 to acknowledge poor complaint handling during the period.
    4. £500 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
71. Once the landlord has completed the repointing and other works that were not completed, as set out in the above table, it should then also consider whether further compensation should be offered considering the Ombudsman’s comments and findings in this Determination. The landlord should confirm its intentions to the Ombudsman with respect to this within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.
72. The Ombudsman also orders that within four weeks:
    1. the landlord’s Chief Executive should apologise to the resident for its failure to complete promised works as detailed in this determination.
    2. the landlord should contact the resident to confirm her current medical circumstances and any other vulnerability she wishes it to be aware of and then to update its records accordingly.
    3. the landlord should consider if decanting is appropriate for the resident while necessary works are being undertaken. If a decant is not appropriate the landlord should set out its reasons to the resident.
    4. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, dated May 2023, (“the Spotlight report”). It should identify where recommendations are relevant to issues raised in this complaint and develop an action plan to enable it to improve its record-retaining systems, particularly in relation to:
       1. Retaining surveyors reports and inspections in relation to its property stock.
       2. Retaining accurate records of works completed and yet to be completed, including a system to track works outstanding so that they can be responded to in appropriate timescales.
       3. Recording data that ensures resident’s vulnerabilities are recognised.
       4. Systems to record follow-up work and where follow-up visits reveal outstanding repair works to be addressed.
73. Within eight weeks it should inform the Ombudsman of the steps it has taken in line with the Spotlight report’s recommendations, setting out how those steps also reflect on the maladministration found in this determination.
74. Within four weeks the landlord should liaise with the resident and provide a timeline to complete the relevant repair works to her property. If its current contractor does not have the availability to complete the works, it should make enquiries with other contractors. It should inform the Ombudsman when it has made relevant arrangements and when it has completed the work following a post inspection survey, a copy of which should be provided to the Ombudsman.
75. Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. Its focus should include a consideration of what steps it should take to prevent failures of the type identified in this report in the future, giving full consideration to the disconnect that the Ombudsman identified in this case between what complaint handlers said would happen and what actually happened. The landlord should consider what steps are needed to ensure that a cohesive cross departmental approach is taken to effective complaint resolution. This should include ensuring that there are effective communication and feedback arrangements between its complaints and repairs teams, including effective monitoring of outstanding works identified during complaint investigations until these works are completed. It should place an emphasis on the importance of post-inspection reports as a method of ensuring works are completed and to a good enough standard. The landlord should also consider what senior management oversight of the interface between the two areas is required. The outcome of its review is to be reported to both this Service and the landlord’s governing body. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case.