Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016525)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016525

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 January 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould at her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat in a 1960s three storey block. The resident is vulnerable and was represented during the complaint by a support worker from a charity, which made their contemporaneous records available to this Service at her request.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy advises it aims to use available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable; to consider additional needs and where appropriate vary service delivery; and to take into account communication needs. The policy advises that support needs should be recorded so that service requests such as repairs can be delivered appropriately. The policy commits to adoption of a Reasonable Adjustments Policy to set out how it will adjust services and ensure relevant data is available to staff who need access to it.
The landlord’s decant policy and website confirms that where unplanned repair work is required, temporary accommodation can be arranged when work is to be done, but whether this is required is up to the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it operates a two stage formal complaints procedure if an initial attempt to resolve a complaint informally is not successful. Issues that occurred over six months prior, or liability claims, are not considered under the procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it compensates for its actions or failure to act, and considers time taken to resolve a complaint; inconvenience caused to a resident; additional incurred costs; and whether a resident had particular needs that were worsened by a situation. The landlord may reimburse 25% of the rent for the loss of one room.

Summary of events

In October 2019, the resident moved into the property, and in mid-November 2019 the representative noted the resident had bought carpet for £146 and laid it in the lounge and hallway herself. The representative’s records that they corresponded with the landlord via email from at least December 2019.
On 15 January 2020, the representative notes they called the landlord to report damp in the lounge. The landlord’s records show that following this, it raised a repair for “Damp inspection – Please trace and resolve lounge wall that is constantly mouldy. support worker is cleaning this multiple times but this keeps coming back. whole flat feels damp.”
On 5 February 2020, an operative attended and noted “Supervisor will need to attend due to scale of works. Balcony walls covered in mould and complete flank wall in lounge and return wall under window. Mould is low level l In lounge [sic].” The representative noted the resident said she was informed that a surveyor needed to inspect the issue; a big job was required; and she would need to stay in her bedroom while strong chemical treatment was carried out.
The representative’s records note an appointment was arranged for 12 February 2020, for which the landlord’s records are unclear, however on 14 February 2020 a repair was raised for “carry out mould wash to lounge and outhouse + Silicone above the plinth window (front/side).” The appointment for this was scheduled to 10 March 2020 then re-scheduled to 27 March 2020 due to the resident’s availability. The landlord notes it then placed the repair on hold, due to it only carrying out emergency works during Covid-19 lockdown, which the resident was informed of. The following month, the representative’s records note the resident redecorated at the property. The landlord’s account advises that it tried to contact the resident to rebook the appointment on numerous occasions.
On 25 August 2020, the representative’s records note that the resident requested support for some outstanding repairs, and the representative contacted the landlord about external lintel damage which it was noted the landlord planned to seal to stop damp. It was noted the resident advised a surveyor had warned the side of the building was at risk due to the lintel dropping, which it was noted the landlord said it would review when a repair for “damp/mould/air brick work to the property” was attended. It was noted that this repair could not be booked, but that the landlord would contact the representative about an appointment.
On 19 October 2020, the representative’s records note that the resident advised that repairs were outstanding and black mould had returned to the living room. On 20 November 2020, the representative’s records note they called the landlord about damp and was informed that it was not possible to book in a visit, but the landlord would call the resident. The landlord’s records advise that in November 2020, a repair was raised for “mold wash required in lounge and the wall is an outside wall that mold is coming through.” The landlord’s account advises that this repair was cancelled after multiple attempts to contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
The landlord’s records advise that the repair for “mold wash required in lounge and the wall is an outside wall that mold is coming through” was re-raised in late 2020/early 2021, and an operative attended on 6 January 2021 and noted “No mould present at time of visit wall damp / damp survey required.” The representative’s records note the landlord attended to carry out a mould wash, but there was no mould as the resident had washed it off, and the resident was informed the damp needed to be investigated as it was structural. The representative’s records observed that their previous reports to the landlord had been about damp and not mould washes, and also note that around this time paint on the resident’s recently redecorated bedroom wall was coming off as it was so damp, which had not happened when she had moved in.
On 14 January 2021, operatives attended for a repair raised for “Leak coming in through wall. Resident wants us to attend to make safe and see what FOW needed. Please attempt to stop water ingress. Dehumidifier may be needed to dry at walls” and the operatives noted “Will need dehum for front room and bedroom, Would also like lead flashing repainted above communal canopy.”
The same day, a dehumidifier was delivered to the property which the information provided advises was left in the property for two weeks. The representative’s records note the resident was informed that the wall water ingress required works related to flashing, pointing, waterproofing of an airbrick, painting of a waterproof membrane on a porch roof, and a crack along an external wall. The information provided advises that a repair for the crack was subsequently scheduled for 29 January 2021, and the damp issue was referred for an inspection by a specialist damp surveyor, who the representative was informed would contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
On 18 January 2021, the representative’s records note that the resident was distressed that works would not take place until 29 January 2021, but that the landlord could not bring the works forward as they were a two-man job. The representative’s records note around this time that the resident reported that the damp issue in the lounge had ruined her furniture, she had soaking wet walls in the bedroom, and she was struggling to sleep in the bedroom due to the damp.
On 19 January 2021, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord and raised concerns about the resident living in the property until the appointment on 29 January 2021, since she had mental and physical health issues and was unable to sleep in the bedroom. They noted a dehumidifier had been provided but queried the use of this as it cost money to run, the exterior was not repaired and water was still coming in. The representative expressed concern that the carpet fitting arranged for 1 February 2021 may not be possible because of wet walls and floors. The representative noted that there had been ongoing issues with damp since March 2020 and queried if the repairs could be prioritised and scheduled earlier. The following day, the representative notes they were informed by the local authority environmental health team that the intended attendance on 29 January 2021 to fix the external crack was a reasonable timeframe.
On 29 January 2021, the representative noted that the resident confirmed the landlord attended and cemented the crack. Prior to this, the evidence shows the landlord’s damp contractor also wrote to the resident to arrange an inspection, which the information provided indicates was scheduled to 5 February 2021 and then rescheduled to 12 February 2021.
On 2 February 2021, the representative’s records note the scheduled laying of carpet in the lounge could not be done as the old carpet was wet. The following week, the landlord’s records note that the representative called and reported that water and snow was now getting into the property and that “some of the walls are frozen.” It was noted that the representative advised that the resident had vulnerabilities and requested for the issue to be dealt with as an emergency.
On 12 February 2021, the damp contractor inspected and supplied a report to the landlord on 22 February 2021. This found that along with condensation there was rising dampness, due to lack of an effective damp proof course that had led to plaster absorbing moisture from damp brickwork. It was recommended to inject a damp proof course; apply salt neutraliser to brick; do re-rendering and plastering work; apply fungal wash to walls; fit thermal boards; fit a new airbrick; fit new window trim; and fit new skirting boards with a dual purpose preservative applied. It was also recommended to remove and reinstate floor coverings and furnishings from the works areas; remove and reinstate one radiator and pipe work in works areas; remove and reinstate sockets, switches and trunking; and redecorate with mould inhibiting paint where necessary. The report added that “external and internal defects that are considered contributory factors to the internal dampness will be commented on for further investigation by the client under separate contract.”
The representative’s records note that the resident felt this confirmed how bad things were and that compensation was due for utility bills and damage to carpet and furniture; and the landlord records a complaint from the representative which seems to have been submitted around this time. The representative raised dissatisfaction about lack of repairs after the damp was raised in 2020, and that no one contacted the resident after lockdown as promised. They noted the job was cancelled after attempts to reach the resident but that she disputed anyone tried to call her. They raised dissatisfaction no one had contacted the resident after the inspection on 12 February 2021. They noted that no one had been to the property to resolve the issue between January 2020 and January 2021, and the resident was living in a house that was uninhabitable, as she could only live in her bedroom and her carpet and furniture were ruined. They noted that the resident suffered from mental and physical health issues which the damp had exacerbated.
In March, April and May 2021, the landlord approved, raised then scheduled the repairs, during which the representative and resident unsuccessfully chased the landlord for information about the works and a response to the complaint. In March 2021, this Service also asked the landlord to respond to the complaint.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to take a radiator off the wall, and the following day, this Service contacted the landlord again after the resident informed this Service that the landlord had not contacted her about what work was going to be done and raised dissatisfaction about the conditions she was living in. The landlord was asked to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the damp repairs and damage to her possessions within five working days.
The resident’s account then advises that contractors turned up unannounced to the property on 1 June 2021 and it is not disputed that the damp works were completed between 1 and 8 June 2021. The representative’s records note that the property was a ‘building site’ during this time, which distressed the resident, and enquiries were made about a decant. The representative’s records note that they were informed a decant required a surveyor’s permission, and that unsuccessful attempts were made to speak to a surveyor.
The landlord logged a complaint on 10 June 2021 after further contact from this Service, and it spoke to the resident the following day after which it emailed her. It said it would arrange for a radiator to be re-fitted and confirmed it would investigate delays responding to the complaint; delays responding to the damp and mould reports; lack of communication about repair appointments; the resident remaining in the property during the repair works; and damage to possessions.
The landlord’s notes from this call record that the resident said she had reported issues since November 2019; been waiting two years for wall works; experienced mould through walls and floors every week; and had treated mould herself. The records noted that she said she was given no notice for the building works, which had involved drilling plaster off the walls and digging up the flooring and had resulted in everything being covered in brick dust and plaster. The records note that the resident said that carpets had been spoiled by the builders; a TV and hoover had been damaged; and there was dripping water related to the radiator that was off the wall. The records note the resident said she had spent nearly £2,000 on decorations and enquired whether the landlord could redecorate the flat.
On 16 June 2021, a surveyor inspected the property and agreed redecoration should be done. The information provided confirms that a repair was subsequently raised to paint walls, ceilings and woodwork.
The landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint on 29 June 2021:
1. It noted that engagement with the representative had been limited as it had no record that an authorisation form had been returned. It apologised if this had been returned and not recorded.
2. It acknowledged and apologised that it had delayed in response to a complaint referred by this Service in March 2021, due to IT issues.
3. It noted that on 5 February 2020, an initial damp repair was scheduled which was suspended due to Covid-19 regulations that only allowed emergency works to be carried out. It advised that its repairs records showed that the resident was unable to be reached when it attempted to reschedule the appointment, and there was no record of further reports from the resident, which led to a considerable delay before further works were scheduled.
4. It noted the visit in January 2021 and the damp survey in February 2021, after which it was provided a quote for consideration, however there were communications issues which resulted in a delay in the works being approved. It advised that there had recently been changes to the process to manage damp surveys which it hoped would avoid such delays.
5. It noted that works to dampproof the living room were scheduled with the resident for 1 June 2021 and took one week to complete, during which she was unable to use the room. It advised that the surveyor who supervised the work did not discuss a decant as it was not considered necessary to decant her, since the works were to two walls in the living room and left kitchen and bathroom facilities unaffected.
6. It noted that after speaking to the resident, it had scheduled an inspection for the following day. It also noted that in recognition that the works had affected her recent redecoration, it was arranging for redecoration works at its cost. It noted that its contractor had already visited her to discuss decoration requirements; that materials were on order; and that the decoration was expected to start on 5 July 2021.
7. It acknowledged that the resident experienced considerable delays in completion of the works; was caused significant inconvenience; and her use of the living room had been impacted by the ongoing damp issue and the works to remedy this. It awarded £2,008, which comprised £300 for repeatedly having to chase responses and the delay responding to the complaint; £250 for failing to address repairs in line with policy over a considerable period of time; £108 for loss of the living room while works were carried out over a four-week timeframe; and £1,350 for the inconvenience and discomfort of waiting for the works.
8. It explained that normally the resident should go through her home contents insurance for damage to possessions, but it provided explanation about how to submit a claim to its own insurance claims department.
The following day, the landlord notes it informed the resident that works to redecorate the property would commence on 5 July 2021, which the information provided confirms went ahead.
The resident and the representative subsequently contacted the landlord on several occasions between 5 July and 2 August 2021 to raise dissatisfaction with the stage one response and the repairs. The resident restated dissatisfaction with compensation, contractor behaviour, damage to possessions such as a blind, TV and carpet, and the length of time she had been unable to use the lounge. The contractors who attended to refit a radiator had trod dog mess into her new carpet, and informed her that the landlord had said shoe coverings were not necessary. The resident was unhappy a larger radiator was fitted than she had been led to expect, and a hole had been left in the front room wall which needed to be filled and painted.
The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 15 August 2021:
1. It apologised that the radiator was not the one that the resident expected, and it explained that the heating contractor would have replaced the radiator with one that was appropriate to the room size and the system in her home.
2. It apologised that the contractors left the resident’s property in a mess and walked dog mess onto her carpet. It advised that it was not acceptable that this happened and advised that it had been raised with the contractors to ensure it did not happen again. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill towards cleaning the carpet.
3. It advised that the decoration work, which was the only work outstanding, had now been completed, so all of the scheduled work had now been completed. It advised that a new job had been raised in relation to a kitchen window which would be addressed in separate correspondence.
4. It restated apologies for the problems with the repairs and then the contractor.
5. It acknowledged that the resident requested a review of the compensation and said that it considered the compensation to have been set at an appropriate level. It advised that this now came to £2,058 with the additional £50 it had awarded. It noted that the previous response had supplied details on how to make a claim for property damage directly to the insurance team.
On 19 August 2021, the representative contacted the landlord about the hole left in the wall. The landlord’s repairs records advise that it subsequently raised a repair for “Hole in wall above skirting. Is a very large hole. Please fill in living room. Please ensure shoe coverings are worn and floor protection is laid,” which this investigation understands the landlord attended on 20 September 2021 and then completed on 21 October 2021.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service and said the landlord had not satisfactorily addressed that damp was first reported in 2019; operatives were sent to do mould washes after it was reported that the issue was damp; she was left to live in horrific conditions with no carpet and wet walls and floor; her home was made uninhabitable and affected her health; carpet and furniture were affected by mould; works commenced without notice; she was left to move heavy furniture herself; the flat was filled with dust; her possessions were manhandled; and damage was caused to flooring, bedroom carpet and a blind. The resident explained that workmen turning up without notice caused distress, due to her issues and need to take medication in the morning. The resident advised that she wanted to be properly compensated for her distress and damage to her property, for which she felt £15,000 was a fair figure; to be reimbursed 25% of her rent since November 2019; and to be reimbursed for expenses incurred for mould treatment, redecoration and flooring. Subsequent correspondence also refers to her seeking a move, experiencing further damp/mould and water ingress, and experiencing anti-social behaviour issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The information provided advises that the resident has reported water ingress affecting her bedroom wall and ceiling, which the landlord took separate action for. This investigation does not consider this issue, given this was not the subject of the original complaint and the resident was informed that this would be addressed separately to the landlord’s complaint response.
The resident has informed this Service of further water ingress to the property, which in correspondence she links to lack of resolution to repairs as well as to flooding from a property above her. In addition, she has raised anti-social behaviour issues with neighbours and indicated a desire to move. This investigation does not consider these issues either, given they were not the subject of the original complaint and post-date the original complaint. The resident has the option to raise her concerns to the landlord, and to then ask it to respond to a new formal complaint if she is dissatisfied with its reply.

The landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould at her property

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the property is fit for human habitation. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the reports of damp, and following the resident/her representative’s reports from January 2020, it took appropriate action to arrange initial inspections. There was a delay however between March 2020 when a chemical mould treatment was originally scheduled and January 2021, when the landlord completed some works and referred the issue to a damp specialist after the issue was reraised. Between the damp survey in February 2021 and recommended works in June 2021, there were then further delays and communication issues with the handling of the repair and complaint.
In its complaint responses, the landlord has acknowledged that there were service failings in its repairs and complaints handling, and acknowledged that the resident experienced considerable delays and inconvenience in completion of the works. The landlord has not disputed that the resident waited some time for effective action to be taken about the damp that she reported, and it therefore acted appropriately by apologising to her, offering compensation, arranging redecoration, and confirming that process changes had been made to manage damp. The Ombudsman is also aware that the landlord has made further process changes for damp since the complaint. The compensation totals £2,058 which comprised £300 for time and trouble and complaint response delays; £250 for repairs delays; £108 for a four week loss of the living room while works were carried out; and £1,350 for the inconvenience and distress waiting for the works.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint, and so this further assessment considers whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
This Service recognises that it will have been distressing for the resident to be affected by the issues, however the total compensation of £2,058 seems overall reasonable for the failings the landlord identified when taking into account that the offer comprised £708 plus an additional £1,350. The £1,350 also works out as being equivalent to 25% of the resident’s rent for a 50 week period at £27 per week, and equivalent to 25% of the resident’s rent for a 61 week period at £22 per week (given that 25% of the resident’s £87 rent in 2019 is £22, and 25% of the resident’s apparent £108 rent in 2021 is £27).
This means that the compensation reflects the lounge being impacted for a lengthy period, and the total amount is within the range that the Ombudsman might recommend for failings such as lengthy delays which have a serious impact on a resident. This shows that the landlord was appropriately seeking to recognise the lengthy impact on the resident, even though its complaint policy advises that it does not consider issues beyond six months before a complaint is made.
This investigation notes that the resident feels that parts of the property were uninhabitable and that she should be reimbursed for 25% of her rent from November 2019, however in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response and compensation offer in respect to this aspect was reasonable on the evidence available. From the records of the landlord and the representative, it is not evident that the resident lacked continuous use of her lounge from November 2019; that the issue always had the same severity; or that the property was deemed ‘uninhabitable’ by qualified professionals.
This investigation notes that the resident raises dissatisfaction that the landlord attended to carry out mould washes after reports of damp were made. This Service notes that some issues may require inspections to identify problems, so while reports of damp may have been made, the landlord’s initial response to schedule a chemical treatment in March 2020 was reasonable, as this followed a physical inspection. The attendance for a mould wash in January 2021 was also not unreasonable, given the previous intention was to carry out a mould treatment. The attendance allowed the issue to be assessed and following this, action was taken to carry out external works to a crack and refer the issue to a damp specialist, which was appropriate action even if this involved delays. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response concerning delays reasonably addressed such issues.
This investigation notes that the resident feels that the compensation does not address the impact on her mental or physical health or damage to her possessions. This Service recognises the distress and disruption that will have been caused to the resident, however it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to make decisions about liability for the impact on health or possessions, and while we may take a view, only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was reasonable to ask the resident to submit a claim via a separate procedure, as this is in line with our approach and the landlord’s policy that it does not consider liability claims under the complaints procedure. The claims procedure also seems the most appropriate procedure to pursue the figure of £15,000 that the resident feels reflects the level of detriment caused to her.
This investigation notes that the resident also complained that she had spent large amounts of money on decorations which were impacted by the damp. This Service recognises that it will have been distressing for the resident for the issues to reoccur, however the landlord’s subsequent redecoration seems a reasonable resolution to this aspect, in addition to its compensation offer. This action by the landlord was in accordance with our Dispute Resolution to ‘put things right.’ On the evidence available, it is not in the Ombudsman’s expertise to decide if the landlord is further liable, and the resident had the option to submit a liability claim using details she was provided if she felt that the landlord was liable for a further remedy.
The landlord’s response and offer therefore reasonably addressed its acknowledged failings and the majority of the complaint, however there are aspects of its response which was not satisfactory.
It is not satisfactory that there is no evidence contacts from the resident and her representative were handled more in line with the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy, which places a responsibility on all its staff to record needs and vary service delivery. The representative’s contact from an early stage, for example the January 2020 works order that refers to a support worker, provided early opportunities for the landlord to invite any necessary authorisation; record details; and make service delivery adjustments. The landlord has noted that it made multiple contact attempts during periods of delay such as after lockdowns, and some delays may have been avoided if it had given more regard to the resident’s vulnerability and recorded appropriate details.
It is also not satisfactory that there is no evidence of greater regard to the resident’s vulnerability prior to the commencement of the damp works, through discussion of any service delivery adjustments. The landlord is entitled not to have provided a decant if it did not believe this was necessary, however more appropriate consideration of the resident’s vulnerability may have provided a more timely opportunity to discuss and manage her expectations in respect to this as well as the works in general.
Finally, it is not satisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate it appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint that the week-long damp works in June 2021 commenced without any prior notice to her. The landlord acknowledged and addressed communication issues experienced by the resident chasing for updates, however it did not address this aspect in any satisfactory way, and this investigation sees no evidence to support its stage one response that the works were scheduled with the resident. The landlord should ensure that it communicates effectively, particularly to vulnerable residents, to manage expectations about works and the impact these may have on living in a property. It is clear that the resident was caused additional distress by the unannounced commencement of the works, which will have been exacerbated by her vulnerabilities and the lack of appropriate communication about what the works involved and how long they would take.
The landlord should have demonstrated that it acknowledged these failings and took appropriate action, to ensure more regard was given to vulnerabilities and to ensure more effective communication was provided about works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered is not fully proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and does not fully take into account the impact on her. This means this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of service failure, which would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken positive steps to acknowledge and provide redress for the majority its failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident about damp and mould at her property.

Reasons

The landlord made a significant compensation offer which reasonably addressed its acknowledged failings and the majority of the complaint, and it was reasonable to advise the resident to submit a liability claim via a separate procedure, which is best placed to consider further compensation for the impact on her health and possessions. However, the handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities was not entirely satisfactory, and the landlord does not demonstrate it appropriately acknowledged and investigated the works in June 2021 commencing without any prior notice, which will have caused additional distress to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within four weeks, pay the resident:
1. the £2,058 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
2. £300 for the additional issues identified.
The landlord should provide evidence of the above within four weeks of this decision.
The landlord to review:
1. its processes and staff training needs to identify, record and make service adjustments in respect to resident vulnerability;
2. how it ensures services such as repairs give regard to vulnerability prior to works such as the damp works seen in this case;
3. whether more contact methods should be used for repairs that involve vulnerable residents and health and safety issues such as damp, following unsuccessful contact attempts such as those seen in this case in 2020.
The landlord should write to this Service with the outcome of this review within six weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure that it considers and responds to any liability claim submitted by the resident.
The landlord to liaise with the resident to inspect the property for any internal and structural repairs, and then to:
1. inform her of its findings;
2. raise and monitor any identified repairs.
The landlord to review the status of its adoption of a Reasonable Adjustments Policy, and:
1. progress the implementation of this if it has not yet been adopted;
2. review potential amendments in light of this case if it has been adopted.
The landlord should inform this Service of its intentions in respect to the above recommendations within four weeks of this decision.