Catalyst Housing Limited (202105781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105781

Catalyst Housing Limited

16 March 2022

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 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns surrounding the inspection and replacement of an extractor fan and associated issues.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat and the landlord is the freeholder.
Evidence provided by the landlord showed that, on 3 September 2020, several internal emails were circulated about the concerns the resident had reported that he had previously raised in January 2020, regarding the ducting pipe and extractor fan in the bathroom at his property. The internal emails showed that the landlord’s staff were trying to determine whether it was responsible for the ducting pipe.
The internal emails referred to part of the resident’s lease agreement which stated that the leaseholder was responsible for “all conduits within the said flat which exclusively serve the same”. It was concluded by the landlord that the resident was responsible for the ducting because this “would exclusively serve the leaseholders flat”, and a replacement of the extractor fan was not the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident provided a chronology of events to explain how the landlord had handled his above concerns when he made a stage one complaint to it on 7 April 2021. He stated that the landlord failed him by not adequately responding, and taking appropriate action in a timely manner, after he had previously reported a defunct extractor fan to it. The resident explained that this had been going on for one year before this was finally resolved.
The resident explained in his chronology that, when the extractor fan stopped working in March 2020, he contacted an electrician at the time, who raised concerns that this may have been caused by a possible faulty ducting pipe or leakage in the loft. The electrician had advised the resident to have this checked. The resident explained that he reported this to the landlord at the time, and was advised that this would be escalated for an inspection to be made in respect of the ducting pipe.
The resident explained that nothing was done by the landlord for nearly five months, and that he was later informed by it on 24 August 2020 that it was his responsibility to replace the extractor fan. When he stated that he had explained to the landlord that he had been advised by his electrician that the ducting pipe could be faulty with a possible leakage, which was likely to have caused the extractor fan to stop working, the landlord explained once again that it would authorise an inspection of the ducting pipe in the resident’s loft.
On 7 September 2020, the resident reported that an operative from the landlord’s contractor attended the property. The resident said that he was not aware of this visit, as he had not received a notification for this, and that he had only found out when he had heard noise outside his flat. When he opened the door, he stated that he saw someone going up a ladder to his loft area. The resident reported that he was advised by the operative that they were attending to carry out an inspection. After the inspection was completed, the resident asked if he would receive a report of the findings and he was advised that this would be emailed to him by the end of the week.
Evidence provided by the landlord of its internal correspondence showed that, on 8 September 2020, the operative mentioned above, emailed the landlord to advise that they had attended the resident’s property on 7 September 2020, and that an inspection of the extractor fan had been carried out. It was explained that the ducting pipe was a solid construction and fixed with a bracket along the horizontal length at either end of the fan and roof tile vent. This had reportedly been correctly installed and there were no issues found with this. The extractor fan in the bathroom was described as having been in a good location and not unsafe if the correct fan was used.
The extractor fan had been mentioned by the landlord’s contractor as having not been in use for a few months, and it was said that the resident would need to get an independent electrician to replace it. It was also stated in their email that the resident had explained to the operative that the fan used to have water droplets on the cover when this was not in use. The operative stated that they had explained to the resident that this was normal when cold air was coming in from the outside, and that a new improved extractor fan would help. The operative recommended a suitable extractor fan that speeded up when this sensed vapour to prevent cold air from entering the bathroom. Their email also requested that the resident be sent a response by the landlord with its findings and his responsibilities as a leaseholder.
The resident also explained in his chronology provided to the landlord that it took three weeks before he received a report via email from the operative mentioned above. The email from the operative explaining their findings was described as having been sent on 28 September 2020, and the contents of the report were the same as the email sent by the operative to the landlord on 7 September 2020 above. This stated that there was no issue with the duct pipe, and that the resident needed to get an electrician to replace the extractor fan. The resident raised concerns regarding the length of time it took for him to receive the report.
The resident further explained that, when the operative attended his property on 7 September 2020, he asked the operative if there was any possible leakage from the roof, but he was advised that a roofer would have to check this. The resident also explained that the operative mentioned that the resident would have to arrange for a roofer to attend as they only dealt with electrical problems. The resident mentioned that he was dissatisfied with the length of time it took for the inspection to be carried out, but he acknowledged that he understood and accepted that no repairs were being undertaken until June 2020 due to the corona virus pandemic.
The resident further explained that the landlord had booked an appointment for a roofer to attend the property on 26 October 2020. On the scheduled day of the appointment, two contractors were said to have attended but they were unable to gain access to the loft area they needed to inspect, as they did not have the key to get through to a small door leading to the loft area in order to complete the inspection.
On 11 November 2020, the resident said that he received a call confirming that a roofer would be on site to carry out an inspection on 17 November 2020. The resident explained that, when the roofer attended the appointment, they advised that there was no visible evidence of any potential leakage from the roof, but that they could not provide any explanation for the droplets of water coming out of the extractor fan. The resident also outlined that, when he then called the operative who had previously inspected the property on 7 September 2020 to explain what the roofer had stated, he was reassured that it was safe to have an extractor fan fitted and that the fan would blow any excess water away.
Based on the above advice provided, the resident reported that he subsequently contacted his electrician and instructed them to purchase an extractor fan which cost £159. When the resident’s electrician attended the property on 3 December 2020 to install the fan, however, he stated that they mentioned that they were not prepared to fit the extractor fan, on the grounds of danger to health and safety. The electrician later provided the resident with a report of their findings at his request.
The date of the report was not provided, however the resident explained that the report from his electrician stated that a substantial amount of water came out when the ducting pipe was put back to where this should have been, which was at the top of the existing extractor fan. Due to the volume of water that came out of the pipe, the electrician was not willing to put up a new extractor fan, as it was not safe to do so.
The report from the electrician also stated that water could still be heard moving around in the ducting pipe, and that an investigation needed to be carried out to find out why such a large volume of water had accumulated in the ducting pipe. The electrician mentioned that they had therefore disconnected the extractor fan, safely terminated the cable, and contained this in a junction box. They additionally recommended that a new extractor fan not be installed until the issue with the ducting pipe was resolved.
The chronology provided by the resident showed that the landlord’s contractor’s operative later emailed the landlord on 9 December 2020. They were described as having advised it that the ducting pipe in the loft above the property had water collecting because there had been no working extractor fan for many months, which should have been replaced straight away. It was further explained that the water had collected due to condensation, and that this could be removed using a flexible rod with a cloth to gain access. It was reported that, if the correct bathroom extractor fan was installed, then there would not be an issue.
The resident explained that the landlord had subsequently provided him with the details of a private electrician who could install the above extractor fan, who attended on 30 December 2020, and that a new extractor fan was installed by them at a cost of £60. This was after the water that had accumulated in the ducting had been removed by them, which was reported as having pooled due to the pipework dipping at a slight angle that was resolved by them raising this sufficiently to empty the water from the ducting.
The resident further explained in his stage one complaint on 7 April 2021 that, as he had no extractor fan between March and 30 December 2020, mould had appeared on the tiles in his shower unit. He expressed concern about his health, as he said that the landlord had failed to address this issue for nine months. The resident also explained that he had to use the services of a professional tiler, as water had got between the tiles and damaged the plasterboards to which the tiles were attached.
The resident stated that he was therefore claiming £159 for the new extractor fan that he had installed, and that he had a copy of the receipt for. In respect of the shower, he additionally claimed £900 for five days’ labour, £120 for replacement tiles, £40 for tile boards, £68 for adhesive/grout and £6 for silicone, for which he had an invoice. The resident also claimed the £60 spent for the electrician and the builder who had accompanied them and resolved the above issue. He explained that, as a result, he was claiming a total for the above items of £1,353, which did not include the cost of his extensive telephone calls and time in addressing this. The resident also wanted compensation from the landlord for the mental anguish this caused.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to let him know that his stage one complaint about the faulty ducting pipe in his loft area, which led to the extractor fan becoming defective, was being considered by it. It stated that a complaint response would be sent to him within ten working days once a review of this had been completed.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord’s contractor’s operative who had previously attended the resident’s property on 7 September 2021 sent an internal email to it explaining that there was no evidence of any defect with the ducting pipe. They explained that the photographs that were available showed that the ducting pipe was straight and level. The replacement extractor fan was therefore described as having been the resident’s responsibility to install.
The operative reiterated that, if the extractor fan had been replaced straight away, then there may not have been an issue with condensation. They said that the mould could be cleaned, wear and tear of tiles that needed to be replaced for cosmetic reasons were the resident’s responsibility, and the landlord should not be reimbursing him for these. It was also stated that, if there was an issue with the grout between the tiles, then the resident should have had this repaired and maintained.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord emailed a stage one complaint response to the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to him. It advised that an attempt was made to call the resident to provide the details of the complaint response to him. The landlord explained that it had investigated the complaint, and that it would not be reimbursing the resident £1,353 which he had requested from it.
The landlord stated that this was because there was no evidence of any defect with the resident’s ducting pipe. The photographs of the ducting were described as having showed that this was straight and level. The replacement of the extractor fan was therefore said to be the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder. The original extractor fan was also outlined as having been working for a number of years and that, if this had been replaced straight away, then there may not have been issues with condensation.
On 13 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of its stage one complaint investigation. He requested for his complaint to be reviewed by a senior member of staff at the final stage of its complaints procedure.
On 16 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again and explained that the complaint was based on the fact that the ducting in the property’s loft was defective, allowing water to build up, and that, as this was the responsibility of the landlord, the resident had a legitimate claim. The landlord then emailed the resident on 17 May 2021 and advised him that his complaint had been received and would be escalated by the relevant team.
A final stage complaint response was emailed to the resident by the landlord on 7 June 2021. It explained that it had considered the evidence provided by the resident, the report by the operative who attended the property on 7 September 2020, its policy and procedure for complaints and compensation, and all of the correspondence exchanged so far. The resident was advised that his claim for compensation was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and that he was not entitled to claim as there was no case to answer. The landlord further explained that it had fulfilled its duty when staff recommended a competent and reasonable electrician to him.
The landlord explained that reasonable attempts were made to find a solution as there were three inspections of the property arranged by it. An inspection report was also provided, and a solution to have a new extractor fan fitted was suggested by this. This would have to be replaced by the resident as this was found to be his responsibility, as the landlord said that there was no evidence of a leak. The landlord stated that it was satisfied that all actions involving the complaints policy had been carried out, and that a fair decision had been made by it.
The landlord believed that there was a difference of opinion between contractors, with one reporting water in the ducting causing the extractor fan not to work, and the other reporting that the fan needing replacing with a new version. The lesson that it had reported that had been learned was that the extractor fan would have been replaced much sooner had there not been a lockdown. The subsequent damage to the tiles could therefore not have been avoided, according to the landlord.
The resident responded to the landlord on 7 June 2021, when he explained that he did not agree with the above decision. He added that, if an electrician had attempted to fit an extractor fan without ensuring that there was no water in the ducting that was its responsibility, there was a fair chance that they would have been electrocuted as the combination of water and electricity was dangerous. The resident was not satisfied with the way that the landlord had handled his concerns about the inspection and replacement of his extractor fan, which he subsequently referred to this Service with his above stage one complaint and chronology.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is required “To inspect maintain repair and as necessary renew and replace the Conduits in under upon or serving the Estate other than those serving only one flat on the Estate”.
The lease agreement also states that the landlord is required “To keep in good and substantial repair and condition and to inspect maintain, clean repair and as necessary renew and replace the structures of the Buildings AND in particular…the roofs”.
Under the lease agreement, the resident is obliged to “At all times during the Term to keep clean and in good and substantial repair and condition and renew and replace as necessary such of the interior of the Premises and the fixtures and fittings therein” as the landlord is not required to repair and maintain by the above provisions.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that leaseholders “are responsible for all repairs within their property unless it is needed due to a leak or other damage caused by us.”
Under repair priorities and targets, the responsive repairs policy explains that the landlord carries out emergency works within 24 hours. These are classified as repairs required to avoid danger to personal safety or serious damage to the building. In some cases, a temporary repair to make safe is carried out with any subsequent repair being re-categorised as appropriate.
The responsive repairs policy also describes routine works as repairs which are not urgent, but are not reasonable to wait for a planned programme of works, such as faulty electricity which is not dangerous, faulty sanitary ware and plumbing, as well as general non-urgent repairs. It offers flexible appointments for these repairs without a specified timescale.
The landlord carries out pre-work and a selection of post-work quality inspections of its repairs under its responsive repairs policy to make sure its repair service is of a consistent quality. Pre-inspections are to be carried out before a repair is raised including if this is a complex repair, there is insufficient information to identify the repair needed, or where it is unclear whether the repair is its responsibility.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the resident will be reimbursed for damage to property and possessions if the landlord, or someone working on its behalf, are responsible for damaging a customer’s property or possessions. The customer will be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of the damage.
The compensation policy explains that insurance claims need to be made immediately after the incident occurred. If this gives rise to a claim under the landlord’s liability insurance, this will be dealt with by its insurers outside of the policy.
The landlord also has discretion under its compensation policy to offer its residents goodwill gesture payments to recognise that they have received poor service, not received a service, or if this has been unreasonably delayed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns surrounding the inspection and replacement of an extractor fan and associated issues

Following the resident’s report to the landlord to raise concerns about his extractor fan in March 2020, evidence provided by the resident suggested that it advised him at the time that it would escalate this for an inspection to be carried out. There is, however, no evidence to show that an inspection was carried out within a reasonable period of usually within 28 days of the resident’s initial report. The landlord’s above responsive repairs policy requires that pre-work inspections are carried out to determine who is responsible for a repair where this is unclear, such as in the resident’s case where the parties disputed this. This is inappropriate as it took five months before the landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 7 September 2020.
This was after the resident explained that he had responded to the landlord on 24 August 2020, when it informed him that it was his responsibility to replace the property’s extractor fan, and it again agreed to his request that it inspect the ducting pipe in his loft for a water leak from this. Although the landlord reiterated to the resident on 3 September 2020 that the lease agreement stated that it was his responsibility to replace the extractor fan, a pre-work inspection should have been arranged within a reasonable period of time, shortly after the resident raised his concerns in March 2020. This is as result of their dispute over the responsibility for this, and was a failure on its part, as it contributed to the delays in the resident arranging the necessary repairs to replace the fan by not inspecting the leak earlier.
While the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not specify timescales for pre-work inspections, a reasonable timescale to complete the inspection to allow routine repairs to be carried out should normally be within 28 days and, therefore, it would have been expected to have been completed by 15 October 2020. However, the resident had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to complete the pre-repair inspections before he could arrange for repairs to be carried out.
In this instance, the landlord has said that it arranged three inspections on 7 September, 26 October and 17 November 2020. It is noted, in particular, that the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the roof for possible leaks on 17 November 2020, after its inspection of 7 September 2020 found no ducting pipe leaks and it unsuccessfully attempted to inspect the roof on 26 October 2020. In doing so, it complied with its obligation in the responsive repairs policy to inspect “the structures of buildings and in particular the roofs” which it is responsible for maintaining. Although the landlord’s above roof inspections took place 49 and 71 days, respectively after it had identified the need for these on 7 September 2020, which were an inappropriate delays.
However, the evidence provided by the resident shows that the landlord’s above inspections also did not result in the resident’s concerns about the water collecting in the ducting pipe being resolved, as his electrician was not able to install the extractor fan when they attended to do so on 3 December 2020.
Furthermore, the landlord’s contractors who attended the property for the roof inspection on 26 October 2020 were unable to access the loft area, as they did not have the keys which should have been provided to them by it to enable them to do so. The evidence provided by the resident in his chronology, when he logged his stage one complaint on 7 April 2021, demonstrated that the substantial delays regarding the above inspections at the property exacerbated his concerns, as he had to chase up responses from the landlord for these.
The resident raised concerns that, following the inspections carried out on 7 September and 17 November 2020, he was advised that there were no visible signs that the ducting pipe was defective. Ultimately, the landlord relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who had carried out the relevant inspections and advised it that there were no visible signs of a defect to the ducting pipe. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors at the time in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, given that the reports of water in the ducting pipe that the resident described as having been provided later by his electricians were first mentioned in his stage one complaint of 7 April 2021.
Accordingly, the conclusion at the time by the landlord that there was no visible sign of a defect to the ducting pipe was reasonable in the circumstances in light of its staff’s and contractors’ findings. However, when the operative who attended the property on 7 September 2020 mentioned that the resident should get a roofer to look at the ducting pipe, they should have ensured that there was a safe electrical connection to the extractor fan. This requirement was in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, which states that, in some cases, a temporary repair to make safe is carried out with any subsequent repair being categorised as appropriate.
Furthermore, evidence provided by the resident in his chronology as part of his stage one complaint showed that the operative who carried out the initial inspection on 7 September 2020, took three weeks to provide the resident a report of their findings on 28 September 2020. This added to the delay in the resident being provided with the information that he needed before he could get his own contractor to complete the necessary extractor fan and associated repairs and avoid further damage to his bathroom.
This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy regarding pre-works and quality inspections, which aim to ensure that the landlord’s “repairs service is of a consistent high quality and cost effective”. This was therefore a further failing on its part, as the pre-work inspection remained outstanding for nine months from the initial report in January 2020, as explained by the resident.
It is noted that the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 7 June 2021 attributed this delay to the corona virus pandemic, and that the resident had explained in his stage one complaint that he understood and accepted this. However, while it is reasonable to expect such a delay, the landlord should have prioritised this, as the resident had subsequently raised concerns about safety if a fan was installed without resolving the issue with the accumulation of water in the ducting pipe. The resident stated that he was later provided a report by his own electrician who had attended the property, stating that they were not willing to install a new extractor fan as it was not safe to do so. They were further described as having stated that they had “disconnected the fan, safely terminated the cable, and contained it in a junction box”.
The landlord, therefore, should have prioritised the pre-work inspection of the ducting pipe to enable the resident to make arrangements for the required work to the extractor fan be completed as quickly as possible, in accordance with his obligations under the lease agreement. In normal circumstances, this would be expected to be completed within a shorter time period. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect pre-work inspection and repair of this nature to have been completed within a 28-day period.
Moreover, given that the resident had subsequently explained to the landlord in his stage one complaint how the lack of an extractor fan in his bathroom was causing damage to the bathroom, the landlord should have communicated clear next steps and expectations to the resident at the earliest opportunity. This ought to have included confirming the expected timeframe in which all pre-work inspections would be completed to enable him to arrange for repairs to be carried out.
It is not disputed that the landlord explained to the resident his responsibility regarding the maintenance of the extractor fan from 24 August 2020 and of the “conduits” serving his flat from the 3 September 2020. This was in line with the terms of the lease agreement mentioned above, and the responsive repairs policy requiring the resident to repair the interior of the property. However, it took the landlord six months from agreeing to inspect the ducting pipe in March 2020 to communicate this to the resident. This was an unreasonable failure on its part, and the landlord did not use the complaints process to acknowledge that its delay in communicating with the resident had exacerbated the situation.
The landlord provided evidence from its correspondence to show that its contractor advised it, on 9 December 2020, that the water had collected in the ducting pipe due to the lack of an extractor fan, which led to condensation building up in the ducting pipe as there was no fan for many months. Following this, the landlord did not acknowledge its failings due to the delay in arranging inspections and taking action to put things right. This was an inappropriate failure, as the landlord did not prioritise the inspection of the property and its communication with the resident about his concerns, which worsened his concerns.
It is therefore concerning that, when the resident explained on 7 April 2021 that he was claiming a total of £1,353 for the financial costs that he had incurred from arranging his own repairs to the ducting pipe, extractor fan and tiles, the landlord did not consider offering him compensation for its above delays and lack of communication. It also declined to reimburse the above cost of the repairs and redecorating that he had claimed from it.
In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it has discretion to offer goodwill gesture payments to recognise poor service, and unreasonable delays, and the resident should be reimbursed for reasonable costs arising from damage to his property and possessions that it is responsible for. Furthermore, the compensation policy states that, where it is evident that “it gives rise to a claim under liability insurance, it will be dealt with by our insurers outside of this policy”. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided the resident with its liability insurance details, or directed him to its insurers to enable him to claim for the financial costs that he incurred to put things right, despite them disputing responsibility for his above claim that needed insurers to determine this.
The resident was caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by the landlord’s delays in pre-repair inspections and communication when the resident initially raised concerns to it in January and March 2020. As he was left in a difficult position, it was reasonable that the landlord should have offered him compensation in recognition of these failings on its part, as well as directing him to make a liability insurance claim to its insurers for his financial costs.
Given that it took nine months before the issue was eventually resolved by the resident’s own contractors on 30 December 2020, the landlord should have offered compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him by its delay in pre-repairs inspection and providing him with updates of its findings. It has therefore been ordered below to pay him compensation of £350. This is in line with the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for considerable failures that have not had a permanent impact on the resident, including by him having to repeatedly chase responses and experience repair delays over a considerable period of time.
The landlord has also been ordered below to put right its above failings in respect of the resident’s case by providing him with details of its liability insurance to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for his financial costs. It has additionally been recommended below to review its communication processes for updating its leaseholders on pre-work inspections to be carried out and their responsibilities under their lease agreements. This is as well as the landlord reviewing its staff’s training needs in relation to their leasehold inspection and repair communications, as well as their application of its responsive repairs policy with regard to leaseholders.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns surrounding the inspection and replacement of an extractor fan and associated issues.

Reasons

The decision on whether to carry out pre-work inspections before repairs could be carried out lay with the landlord under its terms of the responsive repairs policy. The landlord did not provide evidence to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the inspections were carried out within a reasonable period of time.
It is concerning that the resident waited for nine months before the repair issues that he had raised with the landlord were finally resolved by his own contractors. The resident had to chase up responses from the landlord and updates with the findings of inspections by its landlord’s staff.
The resident was neither offered compensation for delays and lack of communication, nor provided with the landlord’s liability insurance details by it to enable him claim under its liability insurance, after he informed it about the financial costs that he incurred following the repairs that needed to be carried out to his bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £350 compensation within four weeks to recognise the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failings in respect of the delays in carrying out pre-work inspections for his extractor fan and associated issues, and its lack of communication about these.
2. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide him with information to enable him to make a claim for his financial costs to its liability insurance.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review the way it communicates with leaseholders regarding pre-work inspections to ensure that they are kept informed with regard to upcoming inspections, in a way that takes their circumstances into consideration, and their responsibilities under their lease agreements.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their leasehold inspection and repair communications and their application of its responsive repairs policy with regard to leaseholders. This is to ensure that they provide leaseholders with timely acknowledgements, updates and responses regarding pre-work inspections and appointments and repairs. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.