Wandle Housing Association Limited (202200010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200010

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 July 2024

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 the resident’s requests for:
1. a kitchen replacement.
2. insulation to the property.
3. repairs to the driveway.
4. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property under an agreement dated December 2014. The property is an end-of-terrace house. The resident lives with her brother and her son.
Around the beginning of 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report multiple issues with her property. She said:
1. the kitchen was in poor condition and needed replacing
2. the property did not have enough insulation which made the property cold
3. the driveway was damaged and there was a deep dip in the grass at the side
The landlord inspected the property on 14 January 2022. It found that:
1. the kitchen was in need of maintenance and the landlord needed to check if this was due for replacement
2. the kitchen door needed rehanging into the existing frame
3. the loft was adequately insulated but the landlord needed to carry out investigations to establish if there was cavity wall insulation in place
4. there was a deep depression to the side of the driveway, and the driveway required a concrete side extension to prevent someone from falling into the depression
On 24 March 2022, the landlord informed the resident that:
1. it had raised a repair to make safe the kitchen units and door with an appointment of 30 March 2022
2. it had requested its gas team carry out a heat loss survey and was awaiting a response
3. it had classed the driveway as an improvement, not a repair, and therefore, the landlord would not need to carry out any work
4. it would update the resident once it had obtained further information
On 1 April 2022, the resident complained that:
1. the kitchen was over 25 years old and needed replacing – it was unstable, with cabinets coming off the wall
2. there had been delays in the landlord making the kitchen safe
3. she had not received a copy of the inspection report from January 2022
4. she had already waited a year for a heat loss survey and had been raising concerns regarding heat loss from her property for 8 years
5. the driveway was a trip hazard, and she requested a further explanation about why the landlord would not repair this
6. the landlord had failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns fully
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 May 2022, in which it said:
1. it had added the kitchen replacement to the current year’s programme, which was due to start in June 2022
2. the contractor would contact the resident soon to discuss the kitchen
3. the landlord was working with a new contractor about the cavity wall insulation
4. the contractor had carried out a thermal imaging survey of the resident’s property which confirmed the property was eligible for cavity wall insulation
5. the contractor would contact the resident to arrange an in-depth survey
6. the landlord hoped its contractor could install cavity wall insulation at the resident’s property by the end of June 2022
7. the landlord required further information from its repairs department about the driveway and would update the resident once this was received
8. it apologised for the resident’s distress and inconvenience
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 July 2022. She confirmed that the cavity wall contractor had attended and found no insulation in the walls. With regards to the other aspects of the complaint, she said she was still awaiting an update about:
1. the kitchen replacement
2. the driveway
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 August 2022. This response only dealt with the driveway and did not address the kitchen replacement or the request for cavity wall insulation. It said:
1. the resident had reported the driveway was damaged in January 2022, and the landlord had attended on 14 January 2022 when the resident had requested the landlord extend the driveway to enable her to fit her vehicle on it
2. the landlord had established the area in question was the resident’s front garden and not the driveway
3. the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that residents are responsible for the upkeep of the garden
4. the landlord had not provided an outcome following the inspection
5. it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused
6. it would arrange an inspection of the area within 10 working days and would update the resident by 23 August 2022
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2023 to request that the landlord escalate her complaint again. She explained that she had contacted the landlord numerous times for updates on the kitchen and cavity wall insulation but had not received a response. She informed the landlord that she would like to add a lack of callbacks to her complaint.
Following a request from this service in January 2023, the landlord issued its revised stage 2 response on 9 February 2023, in which it said:
1. it had added the resident’s kitchen replacement to its reserve list only, not the main programme
2. the works had been issued to the contractor following a request to progress
3. the first contractor had refused to progress works because of a breakdown in communication with the resident and her changing the design of the kitchen
4. it had appointed a new kitchen contractor to complete the works, which would progress once the contractor was up and running
5. it was liaising with the kitchen contractor and would contact the resident shortly to advise on the next steps
6. the EPC recommended cavity wall insulation to improve energy efficiency
7. it had referred the resident’s property to its insulation contractor under the government’s EC03 funding initiative but unfortunately, the funding had ended before the contractor had started work on the resident’s property
8. the government released the next batch of funding, EC04, at the end of 2022, and the resident’s property was eligible
9. the contractor confirmed it had not yet surveyed the resident’s property. The landlord explained this was because the contractor was taking a geographical approach and had not yet reached the resident’s area
10. the landlord acknowledged it had failed to address all the aspects of the resident’s complaint in its first stage 2 response and apologised for the oversight
11. it apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident
12. it confirmed the insulation contractor would contact the resident the following week to arrange an inspection
13. it awarded £50 compensation for not issuing a definitive final response to the resident’s complaint
The kitchen replacement started in May 2023 and the landlord completed the work in July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 1 April 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 February 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised a further complaint on 31 May 2023. This complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, does not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This failure by the landlord contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will categorise repairs as follows:
1. Emergency priority repairs are those that are necessary to avoid danger to occupants. This may only mean making the property safe. The landlord assigns these repairs with a 24-hour response time.
2. Appointed repairs are priority repairs that do not qualify as emergencies and are dealt with by appointment. The landlord aims to complete these repairs within 28 days.
3. Major repairs – those non-emergency routine repairs reclassified as being over £1000 and likely to be considered either extensive or improvement to the existing provision, they are not standard repairs. The landlord aims to complete these works within 90 days, but in some instances, the works would form part of a more extensive programme. Where they are due to be covered by an imminent cyclical or a planned maintenance programme, the tenant will be informed, and the repair will be postponed until that date. If required, the landlord will complete any temporary repairs until the programme is due.
The repair policy says the landlord will ensure a good line of communication between itself and its residents, effectively manage expectations and update residents on progress.
It is clear from the information seen by this service that the resident reported repairs to her kitchen dating back to 2016. On 14 January 2022, the landlord inspected the property. At that inspection, the landlord noted that the kitchen was in need of further maintenance and, due to its age, it may be due for replacement.
Following the inspection, the resident called the landlord on 3 occasions between 17 January 2022 and 1 February 2022, requesting an update on what work the landlord intended to carry out to her kitchen. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to these calls. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord as it was not consistent with its policy.
Following internal checks, the landlord found that the resident’s kitchen was over 25 years old and met the criteria for replacement. The landlord added the resident’s kitchen to the reserve list for its existing planned works programme for 2022/23. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
Due to the lack of accurate records, this service has been unable to establish exactly when the landlord informed the resident it added her kitchen to its planned work programme. However, based on the available information, it is reasonable to assume the landlord did update the resident with this information because the resident accepts she was expecting an update from the landlord in April 2022.
On 22 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that one of the kitchen units had fallen on her son’s head. She explained that the kitchen was unstable and requested the landlord escalate her query to a manager because this was her fourth attempt at obtaining an update following the inspection in January 2022. The landlord’s website outlines that residents can report repairs either via telephone, the customer service email or via the customer portal. In this case, the resident directly emailed an employee to report the repair. The employee then had to take emergency leave, meaning that the employee’s inbox had not been monitored. The landlord did not see the resident’s email until she forwarded it to the landlord’s customer service inbox on 2 March 2022. This resulted in a delay in the landlord logging the repair. However, holding the landlord responsible for this delay would not be reasonable as the emergency leave was outside its control.
The landlord made an appointment to repair the cabinets on 30 March 2022. The landlord completed the repair on 6 April 2022 which was 36 days later. The resident explained that the cabinets had fallen on her son’s head and were a health and safety concern. It would therefore have been appropriate of the landlord to classify this repair as an emergency and assign a response time of 24 hours to make the cabinets safe. The landlord did not do this and this was a failure as it was not consistent with its repair policy.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates in March and April 2022. On 9 May 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it expected the provisional start date for the kitchen replacement would be at the beginning of June 2022. It said it would update the resident once the contractor had confirmed the date. The resident contacted the landlord in June as she had not received the start date. On 30 June 2022 the landlord informed the resident that its contractor was unlikely to be able to work on the resident’s kitchen. The landlord confirmed it was looking to use another contractor to complete the work and reduce the delay for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to use another contractor to complete the work once it became aware that its other contractor was not able to fulfil the contract. This is likely to have helped reduce the delay and the impact on the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2022 to request an update on the kitchen replacement and other works. The records show that the landlord tried to call the resident on 4 August 2022, but there was no response. The landlord left a voicemail. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2022 and 7 November 2022, requesting the landlord call her back to discuss the kitchen. There is no evidence to show that the landlord returned either of the resident’s calls. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord.
On 5 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that communication between her and the contractor had broken down. She explained that she had asked the contractor to fit a breakfast bar and for it to fit the kitchen around the appliances, which she had agreed to pay for herself.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord said the contractor had told it the resident had changed the design of the kitchen several times. It also said that the resident had requested a number of non-standard items which had caused an issue with the contractor. This had exceeded the basket cost of the kitchen and was no longer possible for the contractor to install.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023. She said she was unhappy with the delay in replacing the kitchen and that the landlord was not returning her calls. The landlord’s record show that this was the third time the resident had called in 3 weeks. There is no evidence to show that the landlord returned any of the resident’s calls. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 24 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and set out that she had attempted to speak to the landlord about her kitchen replacement multiple times since 3 January 2023. She also explained that she had been trying to speak to the contractor but it had also not responded to her. The resident said that she had spoken to the kitchen supplier who informed her that the contractor had cancelled the order. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the final stage and that the landlord add the lack of communication to her complaint.
In its final complaint response on 9 February 2023, the landlord confirmed that the relationship between the resident and the contractor had broken down and that the contractor had refused to complete the work. It confirmed that it had instructed another contractor who would be in touch with the resident in due course. The landlord provided the resident with a direct email of its project officer. The records show that the landlord spoke to the contractor and asked it to prioritise the resident’s property in its programme.
The resident contacted the landlord for updates on 14 and 31 March 2023. She said she was still waiting for a start date for her kitchen. She said the contractor informed her it was unable to start the work until after April 2023, which she was disappointed about. The landlord contractor offered a start date of 17 April 2023 but the resident had been reluctant to accept this. It would appear from the landlord’s records that the kitchen replacement works started on 2 May 2023 and were completed in July 2023.

Summary and conclusions on the handling of the kitchen upgrade

The Ombudsman finds the landlord responsible for service failure for the following reasons:
1. The landlord acted reasonably in establishing the condition of the kitchen via an inspection. It added the resident’s kitchen to the reserve list for an upgrade. It was entitled to do this.
2. When it was notified that the cupboard had fallen from the wall, it took it 36 days to repair this, when it should have been done sooner.
3. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and, although the evidence shows that there was some contact from the landlord, there were multiple occasions when the landlord did not respond to the resident. There were several occasions where the landlord told the resident it would provide further updates but then did not follow this up.
4. The landlord is not responsible for the initial contractor declining to continue with the work.
The lack of updates and failures to return calls resulted in the resident losing faith in the landlord and feeling that it did not take her concerns seriously. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require more time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The landlord did not do this in this case which was a significant failure.

The landlord’s handling of the insulation to the property

There is no reference to cavity wall insulation in the landlord’s repair policy. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that cavity wall insulation (CWI) is not a repair, it is an improvement and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the landlord would deal with it as such. There is currently no minimum standard for energy efficiency in social housing and therefore there is no legal obligation on the landlord to install CWI. From 1 April 2024, it is a regulatory requirement that landlords ensure homes meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Guidance (see 1.2.1 of the Safety and Quality Standard). Part 5 of the Decent Homes Guidance states:

“The revised definition requires a dwelling to have both efficient heating; and effective insulation.”

Prior to 1 April 2024, the landlord was still responsible to ensure the property was decent and had effective insulation.
Following the concerns raised by the resident about heat loss from the property, the landlord conducted an inspection in January 2022 to check it was adequately insulated. The landlord found that the insulation in the loft was adequate but was unable to access the cavity and therefore unable to check if the property had CWI. The landlord noted at this inspection that the property was an end terrace and was therefore likely to be colder than a mid-terrace property.
As outlined earlier in this report, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 separate occasions between 17 January 2022 and 22 February 2022 requesting an update on her repairs, which included the CWI.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had requested its gas safety team complete a heat loss survey of the resident’s property. It was awaiting a response to this and would update the resident once more information became available. There is no evidence that the landlord made this referral or that the landlord completed the survey. This was a failure by the landlord.
In her complaint of 1 April 2022 the resident referred to the most recent energy performance certificate (EPC), which had a D rating, and recommended that the CWI improve this rating.
In its complaint response dated 10 May 2022, the landlord accepted that the EPC had recommended CWI to improve the energy efficiency of the property. The landlord confirmed that it had recently started working with a new contractor who installed CWI. The contractor completed a thermal imaging survey of the resident’s property which had confirmed the property was eligible for CWI. The landlord informed the resident she should hear from the contractor shortly to arrange a more in-depth survey. The landlord said it hoped the contractor would install the CWI at the resident’s property by the end of June 2022.
The resident informed the landlord on 5 July 2022 that its contractor had attended and found that there was no CWI at her property. Between July 2022 and November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions as she had not received any contact from the contractor.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the contractor would be able to install the CWI with government funding. The landlord confirmed a surveyor would inspect the property which the contractor would arrange. The landlord asked the resident to keep it informed about the CWI.
On 21 December 2022 the resident told the landlord she had not heard from its contractor. The landlord updated the resident on 3 January 2023. It emailed the contractor and asked it to contact the resident. The landlord explained that it could not provide a start date as the contractor arranged its own appointments.
The resident informed the landlord on 24 January 2023 that the contractor had not contacted her.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 February 2023 the landlord explained that although it had put her property forward for CWI to the contractor, the government funding had ended. The landlord therefore had to wait until the next funding was available. The landlord further explained that its contractor needed to carry out another survey before starting the work. The contractor was taking a geographical approach to completing the work and it was not yet in the resident’s area. The landlord said the contractor would be in touch with the resident the following week to arrange the survey.
There are no records to show when the contractor completed the CWI, however the resident informed this service it had. A further EPC assessment was completed on 17 March 2023 which confirmed that the rating had increased to grade C.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it was reasonable of the landlord to delay the installation of the CWI until the government funding became available. It was also reasonable of the landlord’s contractor to take a geographical approach to completing the work which resulted in another delay.
However, the landlord should have explained to the resident, when it agreed to install CWI, that this was work which was funded by the government and not the landlord. The landlord should have informed the resident at the start that the contractor made its own appointments and the landlord had no control over this. This would have likely helped to manage the resident’s expectations and may have reduced the number of times she had to chase the landlord for updates.
As outlined above, the communication by the landlord whilst dealing with the request for works at the resident’s property was poor. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates on several occasions and the landlord failed to respond to those requests.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for insulation of the property in that:
1. it failed to make it clear to the resident at the start that it had agreed to the improvement on the basis that the CWI was funded by the government
2. it failed to provide consistent and meaningful updates to the resident about the CWI

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the driveway

The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for the upkeep of the gardens at the property.
In January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her driveway was damaged. The landlord inspected the driveway on 14 January 2022. The records show that the landlord noted there was a deep depression in the grass to the side of the driveway. The resident told the landlord that she found it difficult to get out of her car without stepping into the depression because the driveway was narrow. She requested the landlord widen the driveway to prevent this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions between 17 January 2022 and 24 March 2022 requesting it provide her with an update on the driveway.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord told the resident:
1. it classed the driveway as an improvement not a repair
2. it had looked at the surrounding area to the resident’s home and there was suitable parking available
3. it would not be carrying out any work to the driveway
In the resident’s complaint of 1 April 2022 she requested a further explanation from the landlord as to why the landlord had classed the driveway as an improvement and not a repair.
In its complaint response the landlord explained it had looked into the resident’s request further and established that the area in question was to the side of the driveway, in the resident’s front garden. It explained that the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that: ‘tenants are responsible for the upkeep of the garden’ and therefore the landlord was not responsible for completing any works.
The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this. It reached a decision it was entitled to make under the terms of the tenancy agreement and its policy.
In its complaint response the landlord referred to the resident’s service request. Whilst it is not clear what this referred to, it is assumed it related to a request to extend the drive. The landlord said a repair manager would need to approve this and it would arrange for someone to inspect the driveway before providing an answer to the request.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident to arrange an appointment to inspect the driveway. There was no answer, the landlord left a voicemail requesting the resident call back. Due to lack of records this service has been unable to determine whether the inspection went ahead and what the outcome was. In her email to the landlord of 24 January 2023 the resident stated that the driveway was, ‘sorted’. This is another example of poor record keeping.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the driveway. It inspected the driveway, identified that the area affected was the garden and not the driveway and reached a decision it was entitled to make. The landlord could have responded to this sooner and been clearer that its position remained final.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
The resident raised her first complaint on 1 April 2022. In the absence of a response, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 19 April 2022. The Ombudsman instructed the landlord to respond to the complaint on 22 April 2022.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that the Ombudsman had contacted it. The landlord advised the resident that the issues complained about, the kitchen replacement and heat loss from the property, had not completed its internal complaint procedure. It requested the resident provide the full details of her complaint and the outcome she was seeking. The resident informed the landlord that she had sent this to the landlord on 1 April 2022. This further indicates that the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had located her complaint of 1 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 May 2022, which was 26 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 July 2022 which it acknowledged the following day. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 August 2022, this was 22 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not address the delays in the kitchen replacement and cavity wall insulation which had both formed part of the resident’s initial complaint. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
On 24 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request that it escalate her complaint to the next stage. She said that she had still not received a response in relation to her complaint about the kitchen replacement or the cavity wall insulation. The resident also said she wanted to add lack of communication to her complaint.
The Ombudsman told the landlord on 30 January 2023 that its final response had failed to address all the points in the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman instructed the landlord to review its original final response and, if necessary, reissue its final response to include all aspects of the complaint no later than 10 February 2023. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord sent its final response on 9 February 2023, which was 154 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This meant that the landlord had 3 stages to its complaint procedure. This was not appropriate and was a significant failure by the landlord.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, in that the landlord:
1. unreasonably delayed in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1
2. requested the resident provide details of her complaint despite the resident sending this to the landlord on 1 April 2022
3. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at both stage 1 and stage 2
4. failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 2

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for insulation to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £450 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£50) (£500 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request for the kitchen replacement
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request for insulation to the property
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, review its handling of the resident’s complaint and identify points of learning on how it can improve its complaint handling and reduce delays.
The landlord must share the findings of the above review with the Ombudsman within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord re-visits the Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), available on the Ombudsman’s website. The Ombudsman’s KIM report recommends that the landlord take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) is recorded and retained so that it can be provided to this service upon request, in response to a complaint. The landlord should consider this and take the recommendations made in the report on board to improve its service.