Believe Housing Limited (202015829)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015829

Believe Housing Limited

16 November 2021

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 response to the resident’s reports about:

a)     The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

b)     Repairs to a kitchen radiator.

c)     A pest infestation.

2. The landlord’s communication and record keeping have also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom house, with a tenancy start date of 20 October 2020. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. The tenancy agreement also confirms resident responsibility for ensuring that the property remains pest free and that they inform the landlord if the property becomes infested with pests, with any relating costs potentially the responsibility of the resident. The landlord has confirmed that its procedure for responding to a report of a pest infestation is to contact the Local Authority’s (the LA) pest control team, who would then visit, carry out any required treatment and alert it to any recommended proofing works. The LA will then monitor the progress on any such works with the landlord. The landlord’s records show that it previously completed proofing works at the property in March 2020.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms repair timescales of 24 hours to make safe in ‘emergency’ cases, 20 working days for ‘appointable’ repairs and 40 working days for ‘planned repairs’. As a Housing Association, the landlord is not required to operate the Right to Repair Scheme, which is mandatory for Local Authority’s. However, the landlord’s repairs policy refers to Right to Repair legislation [The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities(Right to Repair) Regulations 1994] and its formal complaints responses accepted a responsibility to compensate the resident in accordance with these regulations. Under the Right to Repair Scheme, the maximum compensation that can be awarded is £50.
6. The landlord’s lettable standard requires a property to be ‘clean, safe and secure’ at the point of letting. The landlord has provided the post void inspection sheet for the property, which was signed off as meeting the landlord’s lettable standard on 25 September 2020. This included photos taken of the property that date. Some outstanding repairs were listed on this document Including a requirement to tidy the garden), though no mention was made of a faulty kitchen radiator, the subject of issues soon after the tenancy start date. The document confirmed that the property had been cleaned to the landlord’s void standard, that the loft had been checked and cleared and that all windows were in a ‘good’ condition.
7. The landlord has also provided its copy of the sign-in checklist, a document that confirms that certain key aspects of the moving in process have been followed through with, including advice on outstanding repairs, signing of the lettable standard form, issuing of gas service certificate and advising that the turn on and test of the gas supply can take 3 days. The copy of this document available to this investigation was completed, though it had not been signed by the resident.
8. It is noted that the resident has raised additional issues in his correspondence with this Service (including a roof leak) that have not been through the landlord’s complaints process. Any such issues do not fall within the remit of this investigation and have not been referenced here. In addition, some aspects of the issues under investigation progressed some time beyond the complaint under investigation, such as the pest infestation issue. Whilst the Ombudsman expects to see a landlord follow through on agreements made during a complaints process, any formal investigation is limited to the specific issues that have been raised and addressed through this process.

Summary of events

9. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 November 2020. In his view, the month timescale he had been given to complete a kitchen radiator repair was unrealistic. He requested that he be permitted to have the works done himself, with the costs to be reimbursed. He also raised concerns about contact he had with the landlord’s customer service team that day. His complaint was escalated to stage one of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 November, when he contacted it about a window repair issue and, when the landlord called him to discuss this, he stated that he was dissatisfied with a number of issues.
10. The landlord has provided its notes from a call it had with the resident on 23 November 2020, during which the resident had requested that his case proceed directly to the Ombudsman as he believed that an independent review of the case was required. The landlord went through the outstanding issues (detailed below in the stage one response) and confirmed that a Subject Access Request he had submitted was in progress. 
11. The landlord sent its stage one response on 4 December 2020. It responded under the following headings:

a)     Condition of the property – The landlord said that it had reviewed the void inspection reports, photographs and sign-off report and said that the property had been professionally cleaned and sanitised prior to the handover. As such, it concluded that the property had met its lettable standard at the tenancy start date. However, in acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns, the landlord offered to arrange for a cleaning company to return to the property to address any outstanding concerns, including ‘pet fur or fluff’ behind the radiators.

b)     Rat droppings in the loft – The landlord confirmed that it would not normally inspect the loft area as part of its void process, but that it had done so in this case, with no rat droppings identified. It said that it had previously completed proofing works to the property in March 2020 and following the resident’s reports of 16 November 2020, it had referred the case to the LA’s pest control team, who had attended on 30 November, but were unable to gain access. The landlord urged the resident to make contact with the LA, who would recommend any works to it, which it would then arrange.

c)     Gas not switched on at tenancy start – the landlord apologised if the resident had been led to believe that it would take two weeks to turn the gas on and confirmed that it had arranged this within a day of his contact on 21 October 2020.

d)     Kitchen radiator – the landlord said that this repair issue did not fall under the Right to Repair regulations, though it had previously acknowledged communication failures in its handling of the issue. It provided a timeline of the repair issue which confirmed that it had carried out emergency works to stop the leak from the radiator on the same day as it was reported (22 October 2020) and had ordered a replacement radiator the following day. The resident had contacted the landlord on 9 November following a no access visit from the contractor to install the new radiator on 4 November. The installation had then been re-arranged for 4 December with the resident complaining that, he had not received the notification about the original appointment, that he was dissatisfied to be left without heating for a protracted period and about the landlord’s customer service when he contacted on this issue.

e)     The landlord said that it had input the resident’s phone number incorrectly resulting in the text message notification of the original appointment for the kitchen radiator not being sent. It acknowledged that it had failed to identify this issue when he first contacted about this and apologised for the distress the call had caused. Unfortunately, it was unable to bring forward the re-appointment date due to availability. It nonetheless upheld this aspect of the complaint as the repair had not been completed in line with its repairs policy.

f)       Informal complaint – The landlord explained its informal complaint process. It confirmed that its repairs team had attempted to resolve the complaint informally but had been unable to do so; it also acknowledged a further communication failure in that it had overlooked the resident’s request to speak to a service manager. This aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

g)     No action having been taken following contact from the resident’s Councillor – The landlord confirmed that, for the reasons explained already, it was unable to take any different action regarding the repair to the radiator following the contact from the Councillor.

h)     In conclusion, the landlord apologised for its handling of the repair to the radiator and the informal complaint, acknowledging ‘inadequate’ communication and not having completed the repair within timescales. It offered £75 in compensation to reflect these failures.

12. On 11 December 2020, the resident confirmed that he had received a response to his SAR and had identified two concerns with the information. He said the landlord notes from his call on 9 November 2020 had listed a specific member of staff to return his call and asked why this had not happened. He also identified that a further landlord note had referred to temporary heaters being provided, but that this had not happened.
13. The resident also responded to the landlord’s stage one response (date unclear in the evidence), requesting escalation of his complaint. He disagreed that the property had been cleaned prior to the tenancy start date, providing video/photographic evidence that he believed supported his view that the property was in an unacceptable condition. He requested the photos the landlord had taken during the void period, said that the loft space remained covered in rat droppings and the landlord had effectively admitted that it had failed to remove the previous tenant’s possessions from this area. He also disputed that the kitchen radiator issue was not eligible under Right to Repair regulations.
14. The resident also said that he accepted the landlord’s response in relation to the gas supply and the communication failures relating to his informal complaint and its response following contact from a Councillor, though he also requested that appropriate training be issued.
15. The landlord sent a stage two response on 6 January 2021. It reiterated that the property met its lettable standard at the tenancy start date. In reference to the additional information supplied by the resident since its stage one response, it again said that it was prepared to arrange for a cleaning company to address any areas of concern. Regarding the loft space, the landlord repeated that its void inspection had not identified rat droppings in that area. Regarding items left by the previous tenant, the landlord requested a description of these items so that it could arrange to have them removed. It acknowledged the possibility that paperwork had been incorrectly completed at the time of the void inspection and that the most appropriate remedy was to arrange removal of the items as described, at which point it would also remove any rat droppings seen in the loft area.
16. Regarding the kitchen radiator, the landlord acknowledged that this amounted to partial loss of heating and therefore brought the issue within Right to Repair legislation. It confirmed that the replacement radiator was installed on 4 December 2020 and that this meant that the repair took 30 working days to complete against the 20 working day timescale confirmed in its repair policy. For this delay, the landlord offered an additional £30 compensation, calculated at £10 plus £2 per day for the additional delay. In total this meant that the landlord was now offering £105 in compensation, including the £75 offered at stage one of its complaints process.
17. The resident responded to the landlord on 6 January 2021, listing a number of issues that he wanted addressed before he decided whether to progress the case to this Service. This included a full clean of the loft space, a professional cleaning of the windows, compensation for additional cleaning he had to do, training for a staff member with respect to Right to Repair legislation, £50 to be compensated for the kitchen radiator repair as the Right to Repair guidance was calculated in calendar days not working days, a review of the failed callback from a senior manager in November 2020 and a review of the total compensation offered.
18. The landlord sent a further stage two response on 19 January 2021. It confirmed that it would inspect the loft area and remove any rat dropping sand personal items and would arrange to clean those areas of the property he remained dissatisfied with. It agreed to increase the Right to Repair compensation from £30 to £50, but confirmed that its offer of £75 for ‘time and inconvenience’ was proportionate in the circumstances (total compensation £125).
19. Regarding the failed callback from the senior manager, the landlord said that it had addressed this in its stage one response, including an apology for this service failure. It also said that it had failed to pass on his call to its repairs team on 9 November as the call had gone directly to an answerphone facility as no member of the team was available at that time.
20. The resident responded to the landlord on the same date (19 January 2021). He said that he expected contact regarding the cleaning of the property, as offered, but that the landlord’s response was ‘unsatisfactory’ and that he would now progress to this Service. He said the landlord did not understand the Right to Repair legislation and he found it ‘appalling’ that he had been required to convince a landlord that he was entitled to such a payment. He also refused the landlord’s offer of £75 additional compensation. In response, the landlord asked that the resident confirm what figure he believed would be appropriate to acknowledge its service failures; this resulted in an offer of £250 compensation being offered which the resident accepted.
21. However, the resident subsequently changed his mind following cleaning at the property on 27 January 2021. He initially emailed the landlord to thank it for the professional job completed by its cleaning team that day; he then emailed later that day with photos of a bedroom and the landing following the cleaning/clearance of items which, in his view showed rat droppings had been dispersed around the property. He requested that the compensation be reduced to the £50 Right to Repair monies and that the landlord arrange carpet cleaning. The landlord responded to say that the payment had already gone through and that it had arranged for its cleaning team to return the next day to clean any areas affected. In response, the resident said that he was unable to agree to the following day for the cleaning as he needed to book leave from work; he said that he would source his own contractor and would send the invoice to the landlord. The landlord responded to say that it would consider paying for carpet cleaning if he provided the invoice, though it made clear it was not guaranteeing such a payment.
22. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord returned to the property in February 2021 to lay insulation into the loft area. There is also evidence that the landlord continued to look into resolving the pest issues at the property on a long–term basis, including a March 2021 inspection by the LA pest control team that identified some repair issues, which were raised by the landlord in April 2021. Its repairs records confirm that these works were completed on 23 July 2021.
23. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 March 2021. He said that the landlord had initially informed him that it would be two weeks before it could attend to re-commission his boiler, but that it had arranged for this to take place the following day when he had applied pressure. Upon turning the heating on, the kitchen radiator had leaked, with the landlord attending that day to switch the radiator off. He had then experienced communication issues when attempting to arrange the agreed radiator replacement works, with a landlord staff member ending his call, a return call from a senior manager not taking place and it acknowledging that it had input his phone number incorrectly.
24. He had contacted again regarding the loft space and the landlord forwarded the case to the LA pest control team, though it had not addressed the removal of the previous tenant’s personal items which were covered in rat droppings. He had also contacted the landlord about a ground level window on 17 November 2020 and had initially been informed that it would be 24 hours before the issue could be resolved, though it had ultimately completed the repair on that same day.
25. The resident said that he wished the landlord to provide training to staff so that Right to Repair issues were correctly identified, that it arrange to clean the radiators and window casings, that it address a recent roof leak, that it apologise and compensate for the rat droppings within the property, that it complete repairs identified by the LA’s pest control team, that it compensate for professional cleaning of carpets, that it provide an ‘honest answer’ as to the possessions left in the loft, that it pay additional compensation for the delay in replacing the radiator and explain why electric heaters weren’t provided and a reason why a senior manager had not called back as agreed on 9 November 2020. He said that he had been offered a total of £200 in compensation but had declined this offer.
26. In a call with this Service dated 8 March 2021, the resident said that the landlord had not addressed issues that he had raised, that he had challenged the findings it made in its final response but it had not addressed the points he had raised. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident confirmed that he wanted the landlord to either complete repairs or that it re-house him.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property at tenancy start date

27. In general, a tenant accepts a property in its existing condition at the point that he signs the tenancy agreement. In this case, the resident signed the tenancy on 20 October 2020, the same date as the tenancy start date. In addition, it is evident that the landlord completed a post void inspection, during which it identified that the property met its lettable standards, including having been cleaned, with the loft area checked and cleared. The landlord has also provided additional sign-up information retained from the sign-up process. As such, in the normal course of events, it would be appropriate for the landlord to conclude that the property had met its lettable standard at the tenancy start date. The resident had signed the tenancy to confirm acceptance of the property in its existing state and the landlord had retained documentation to confirm that it had progressed through an appropriate process to ensure the property was of a sufficient standard at the tenancy start date.
28. However, it is of concern that the sign-in checklist referred to in the background section above had not been signed by the resident. Ensuring such documents are signed by the relevant party at the relevant time is a crucial aspect of the landlord’s sign-up process. This enables a landlord to confirm that key aspects of the moving in process have been discussed or completed. In this instance, the lack of a signature brings into question whether this key information was shared with the resident, including the standard three–day timescale for turn on and testing the gas supply and outstanding repairs.
29. In addition, the landlord’s final response of 6 January 2021 acknowledged the possibility that the void paperwork had been completed inaccurately with respect to the loft area. Its subsequent actions to arrange clearance/cleaning of this area leaves it reasonable to conclude that items were left in this area and that, additionally, rat droppings were also present. The resident was clearly dissatisfied with this aspect of the landlord’s complaint response, stating to this Service that he was looking for an ‘honest answer’ as to why there was a contradiction between the state of the loft and the void information records. This was a reasonable expectation and it is not clear that he has had an answer. In the circumstances, given the procedural failure identified and the concern over the loft area, the Ombudsman is unable to reach a conclusion that the landlord has evidenced that it let the property in a suitable condition.
30. It is recognised that the landlord followed through with its offer to clear the loft area and that it also offered to clean those areas of the property that the resident remained dissatisfied with. The resident’s initial feedback from the cleaning carried out on 27 January 2021 was positive, with his concerns realised when he noticed rat droppings had been dispersed on the upper floors following the loft clearance. It is not known if the resident arranged for carpet cleaning, with the landlord paying the invoice as requested. In the absence of such evidence, a recommendation has been included for the landlord to consider such a payment, if it has not done so already.
31. The Ombudsman also considers an amount of compensation to be appropriate to reflect the failures identified and the property issues identified at the tenancy start date, in addition with a recommendation that the landlord issue training to staff involved in sign-up procedures to ensure that relevant documentation is both signed and dated. The amount of compensation identified is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases involving service failure, with a higher amount not considered appropriate on the basis that there is no evidence that the property was in such a condition that it was uninhabitable at the start of the tenancy.

Repairs to the kitchen radiator

32. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing/maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including the heating system and related fixtures and fittings, such as radiators. Upon receiving the resident’s initial report on 22 October 2020, the landlord visited within 24 hours to stop the leak from the radiator, this was in accordance with the repair timescales listed in its repairs policy.
33. However, it is not disputed that there was a subsequent delay in the landlord resolving the repair issue. It confirmed that a replacement radiator was required to fully resolve the issue and attempted to arrange this for 4 November 2020 but, due to an acknowledged administrative error, it failed to notify the resident of the appointment and it did not proceed. The replacement works were subsequently re-arranged for 4 December and completed on that date. The resident was dissatisfied with this delay and requested compensation under Right to Repair legislation.
34. The background section above clarifies the landlord’s responsibility under Right to Buy legislation. Irrespective of this legislation, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide a suitable remedy where service failures are identified with its repairs service, including an offer compensation where appropriate. In this instance, however, the £50 offered by the landlord is considered a reasonable remedy for the detriment experienced. The landlord’s 20 working day timescale for this repair presents as reasonable as it is consistent with repair procedures of member landlords across the social housing sector. The landlord acknowledged that it did not meet this timescale, taking 30 working days to complete the radiator repair. There is no evidence that this failure caused a significant detriment as the heating throughout the remainder of the property was not affected; as such, a compensation figure amounting to £50 for the delay beyond the landlord’s published repair timescales is considered appropriate. This figure also amounts to the maximum available under Right to Repair legislation.
35. Given the resident’s concerns and the lack of clarity on this issue contained within the landlord’s complaint responses, it is also recommended that the landlord review its repairs policy to consider how Right to Repair legislation will be incorporated, if at all. It is also not clear whether the resident has ever received a response to the question he asked about temporary heaters. In the circumstances, a further recommendation has been identified for the landlord to clarify its position here, if it has not done so already. This issue alone however, is not considered sufficiently significant to warrant additional compensation as there is no evidence of a need for temporary heating during the period that the radiator was not in use.

Pest infestation

36. The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for keeping the property pest free, though the procedure it outlined to the Ombudsman confirms that it will liaise with the LA, including any required proofing works if the LA’s pest control team recommends as much. It is also noted that the landlord previously completed proofing works in March 2020 and, as detailed above, it is evident that rat droppings were found in the loft area at the property upon the cleaning/clearing works on 27 January 2021.
37. The landlord’s stage one response confirmed that, following the resident’s reports about possible pest activities of 16 November 2020, it had referred the case to the LA who had attempted to inspect the property on 30 November but had been unable to access the property. At that stage, the landlord recommended that the resident contact the LA directly to arrange this visit. This presented as a reasonable and appropriate resolution at that stage as the landlord’s process was to act upon the qualified opinion of the LA pest control team, and it had attempted to arrange the appointment in the first instance.
38. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord arranged to remove any rat droppings from the loft area. It is also evident that the LA inspected the property (March 2021) and recommended works that the landlord raised in April and completed in July 2021. Though there is a concern about the length of time these repairs took, this issue would fall outside the remit of this investigation, which is focussed on events considered within the complaint under investigation.
39. More recent evidence suggests that there may be issues with the garden area, with two landlord inspections having identified the general condition of the garden as contributing to the possible prevalence of pests. It is not clear, however, if the landlord ever completed the tidying of the garden area that remained outstanding prior to the tenancy start date (as noted in the void inspection report of September 2020) and therefore whether this has contributed to the garden condition issue. As this issue sits outside the remit of this investigation, no findings have been made here, though a recommendation has been made for the landlord to confirm its position regarding fencing/the garden as this will provide the resident with clarity and reassurance.

Communication

40. The landlord acknowledged (and apologised for) not having provided a callback from a senior manager, it also acknowledged that it had failed to progress the resident’s call of 9 November 2020 to the relevant department. In addition, there was a lack of clarity about whether the radiator issue came within Right to Repair legislation and also a potential lack of clarity with the turn on and test of the gas supply at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, it is not clear that the resident has ever received a response to the questions he asked about temporary heaters and the loft having been checked and cleared at the void stage.
41. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been ‘inadequate’, apologised and awarded compensation to reflect this, further consideration of which can be found below.

Record Keeping

42. The service failures identified above have highlighted a number of record keeping issues that have clearly contributed to the landlord’s overall service failures here. The issues with the sign-up information have resulted in a conclusion that the landlord could not evidence that it had progressed through its sign-up process. The landlord’s acknowledgement that there may have been an issue with the void report from September 2020 has contributed to the finding of service failure in relation to the property condition issue. In addition, the landlord acknowledged that it input the resident’s phone number incorrectly, contributing to the delay in resolving the kitchen repair issue.
43. A landlord is expected to have sufficiently robust record keeping procedures in place so as to support its overall service delivery. It is clear in this case that its failure to retain accurate and contemporaneous records have impacted its service delivery in a detrimental manner. To reflect these failures, an additional amount of compensation has been identified below.

Compensation

44. The landlord offered a total of £125 in compensation at the culmination of the complaints process, broken down as £75 for ‘time and inconvenience’ and the £50 for the kitchen radiator repair delay. It then offered a further £125 following the completion of the complaints process, which was initially accepted, but then rejected by the resident. This additional amount of compensation was not broken down as the landlord was responding to the resident’s specific request for additional monies. The landlord confirmed that the money was paid, but that it had been rejected by the resident’s bank; as such, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident has yet to receive any compensation.
45. The assessment of the repair issue above has concluded that the £50 offered was both reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced. In addition to this figure, the Ombudsman considers that the £75 offered by the landlord does not reflect the additional failures identified. An additional £150 is considered to be appropriate for the property condition issues, plus £100 for the communication failures identified and a further £100 for the record keeping failures. In total, this amounts to £400 in compensation, with any amounts already paid to be deducted from this figure.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the property condition at the tenancy start date.
47. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress with respect to the resident’s reports about the kitchen radiator.
48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation.
49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s communication.
50. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

51. The landlord has not been able to evidence that it completed an appropriate void/sign-up process. Sign-up information was not signed by the resident and the landlord has acknowledged that void inspection information might have been inaccurately completed. As such, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that the property was let at its lettable standard.
52. The landlord acknowledged that the radiator repair went beyond its repair timescales and offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation to reflect this failure.
53. The landlord referred the resident’s reports of a pest infestation to the LA pest control team, in accordance with its procedure.
54. There were multiple instances of communication/record keeping failure that had a clear impact upon the landlord’s overall service delivery. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that additional compensation is awarded to reflect the impact upon the resident of these failures.

Orders and recommendations

Order

55. The landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation, broken down as detailed in the ‘compensation’ section above, with any amount already paid (including the £50 detailed for the kitchen radiator repair) to be deducted from this figure.
56. The landlord to confirm compliance with this order by 14 December 2021.

Recommendations

57. The landlord to confirm its position regarding carpet cleaning following on from the clearance/cleaning work it instructed on 27 January 2021. To include confirmation as to whether it has reimbursed, or intends to reimburse, the resident for any costs incurred.
58. The landlord to review the record keeping and communication failures identified on this case and to provide training to relevant staff where appropriate. This will include ensuring that officers completing void/sign-up processes are aware of the importance of collating and retaining accurate records, which are signed by parties where required.
59. The landlord to review its repairs policy to ensure that it has incorporated Right to Repair legislation where appropriate.
60. The landlord to clarify its position regarding the question the resident raised about temporary heaters.
61. The landlord to provide an update to the resident regarding the fencing/garden area at the rear of the property, if it has not done so already.