East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202116351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116351

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

10 October 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about delays and repairs during the ‘Right to Buy’ (RTB) process.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy that began on 3 November 2008. The property is a three bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s daughter made the complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident’s daughter lives with her mother and was jointly purchasing the property with her, but was not named on the tenancy agreement. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and her daughter are referred to as ‘the resident’.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy that was in affect at the time of the resident’s complaint detailed a two stage process. It stated that complaints would be dealt with at stage one by an appropriate officer. It did not state a timeframe for a response to be issued to the resident.
The policy explained that stage two of the landlord’s process involved a panel meeting. It said that the panel would be made up of one or more of a senior manager, director or board member, and the resident or their representative where they chose to attend. It said that the panel would meet within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
Since the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has updated its policy and process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s policy that was in affect at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that compensation payments may be appropriate when, “there has been a significant lack of action or service provision that has caused significant distress or inconvenience”.
The policy included a matrix of three compensation bands. The highest band was for payments of £700 and above. It stated that remedies in this range, “are used in recognition of maladministration/severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant…. when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact”.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy stated that where a resident made a RTB application, the maintenance service would be limited to its statutory and contractual obligations only, and all outstanding non-statutory works would be cancelled.
It explained that this was because the property valuation was based upon the condition of the property at the time the RTB application was made.

Tenancy agreement

The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that tenants must promptly report repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility to complete.

Summary of events

On 29 February 2020, the landlord received the resident’s RTB application. Over the first half of March 2020, the landlord completed various internal checks, verified the resident’s proof of residence and associated documents, and discussed her RTB application with her.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s RTB application, and provided her with a ‘RTB2 form’. The letter stated that the residents home would be inspected and valued in due course. It advised that once an RTB application had been made, any repairs or improvement works due to be carried out would be cancelled, unless the work was deemed an emergency.
On 11 June 2020, the resident asked for an update following the letter that she said that she had received at the start of the pandemic. She said that the letter had advised that her house purchase had been put on hold. The landlord replied the same day and said that it could not yet say when the process would restart, but that it would contact the resident in due course.
On 15 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that it had been over a year since she had submitted her RTB application. She asked for an urgent update of when a surveyor would attend. She said that she had had to complete a lot of repairs on the house, and still had a lot outstanding.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and enquired whether the external surveying company completing the resident’s property valuation had attended yet.
On 21 April 2021, the resident emailed her complaint to the landlord. The key points of the resident’s complaint were as follows:
1. She said that she had submitted a RTB application 17 months earlier, that the landlord had lost.
2. She stated that she posted a copy of it to the landlord around January or February 2020, but was told that she needed to submit a further application, which she said she did in March 2020.
3. She said that since that time she had chased the landlord by telephone and email with no progress and little response. She stated that any feedback she had received to date had only come as a result of her directly contacting the landlord.
4. She stated that she had tried to log a repair the previous year, but had been told she was not entitled to due to her RTB application. She said that given the landlord’s lack of interest in processing her application or responding to her, she considered this to be unacceptable.
5. She said that she had finally gotten a response from the landlord to her email sent on 12 April 2021, and was hopeful a valuation surveyor was now booked.
6. She highlighted that she had spent over a year’s worth of rent in the meantime, and asked how the landlord intended to rectify the situation.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that her property valuation inspection was booked for 28 April 2021.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord’s internal email stated that the landlord’s former officer had made a file note on 11 November 2020. It said that the file note had stated that it was awaiting the valuation of the resident’s property, but that the external surveying contractor had a backlog from the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. The email said that having become aware of the resident’s case on 16 April 2021, it had checked with the external surveying contractor and found that it had never been instructed to complete the valuation.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord sent a further internal email regarding the resident’s complaint, which it said it had looked into. It said that the resident’s RTB application had been partly dealt with by a former member of staff before they had left. It said that since that time the resident’s RTB application had “fallen between the cracks”, until the resident’s recent email. It stated that although it did not normally carry out repairs after a RTB application had been made, the resident had received a very poor service and it should be considered in this instance. It presented two potential resolution options and asked that they be discussed with the resident.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss the proposed complaint resolutions. The landlord did not get an answer and so sent the potential options to the resident by email.
On 30 April 2021, the resident replied to the landlord, and explained why she was extremely upset with its response, and that she did not consider the proposed resolutions to be reasonable. She stated that the repairs issues with the property had not just happened over the course of the previous 12 months. She said that it was not her job to report the issues, and that they should have been picked up by the landlord via general maintenance assessments, but that the landlord had failed to do this.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord replied to the resident and apologised for any upset or confusion. It clarified that its email did not represent its formal complaint response, but regarded the potential resolutions that it had hoped to discuss with the resident by telephone. It said that to avoid any further misunderstandings, its manager who was investigating the complaint would now contact the resident directly.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord referred to its call to the resident earlier that day, in which it said a resolution had been reached. The key points of the landlord’s stage one complaint response were as follows:
1. It apologised for the poor service and communication issues that the resident had experienced. It said that it would issue the resident £200 compensation as a result.
2. It said that it had added an additional year’s discount to the property price, which took the discount to 70% in total.
3. It explained that it did not carry out repairs once a RTB application had been received, but that in this instance the resident’s repairs should be investigated by its surveyor. It said that this was being arranged.
4. It advised how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 4 May 2021, the surveying company that had completed the valuation of the resident’s property wrote to the landlord. The letter confirmed that the property had been inspected on 28 April 2021. It stated its opinion of the value of the property as at the valuation date of 29 February 2020. It confirmed that this was, “effectively a retrospective valuation given the significant period of time that has elapsed between the present date and the date of the valuation”.
On 5 May 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response. She explained that, whilst she had accepted the landlord’s proposed resolution during the telephone discussion, she had now further considered it and no longer considered it reasonable. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. She detailed the results that she said she had taken from the “RTB calculator”, that showed that the purchase discount would be 70% with or without the additional year the landlord had offered. She said as such, the landlord’s offer had no value.
2. She said that she was still awaiting a valuation figure for her property, but that house prices in her street had increased by 13% in the last year. She stated that the delays in the landlord’s service meant that she would now incur this extra cost.
3. She said that the type of repairs the landlord had suggested it would consider would not cover the more substantial issues with her property.
4. She stated that in effect all of this meant that the landlord was only offering her £200 compensation, which she did not consider acceptable.
On 8 May 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request, and advised that it would soon contact her to agree arrangements for a ‘complaints panel’ to meet. It advised that the resident was welcome to attend the panel meeting if she wished. It said it would aim to arrange the panel meeting within 28 days, and that the panel’s decision would be sent to the resident in writing.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that asked that the resident be called to arrange for all of the repairs that she had listed to be carried out. The email said that the resident had been asked if she was happy to “park the complaint” until the landlord had received her property valuation.
On 12 May 2021, the landlord replied to the internal email. It explained that it had called the resident but that the call had not gone well, and it had been unable to book the repairs. It stated that the resident had expressed her preference for contact by email. It asked that a date be confirmed for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property to raise the repairs.
On 12 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed her frustration with the lack of progress with the valuation, the payment of the £200 compensation, and an appointment for a surveyor to attend. The resident highlighted that she should be paying towards a mortgage by now, but instead was stuck still paying rent. She referred again to the 13% increase in house prices, and stated that she did not agree to her complaint being ‘put on hold’.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email, and advised that it had now received the property valuation. It stated that it did not normally share the valuation document, but would do so in this instance in the interests of transparency. It explained the next steps of the process and offered to discuss the valuation if the resident wished to. It advised that it was chasing a surveyor’s appointment and would advise a date once received.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that a number of jobs were completed at the resident’s property, including plastering, carpentry and plumbing.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided its ‘offer form’ for the resident to give her written confirmation of her intention to purchase her property. The letter advised of various costs that the resident should consider, which included any repairs and maintenance of the property.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident its complaint response that detailed the findings of its complaint panel meeting held on 8 June 2021. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she attended the meeting (via Zoom). The key points of the landlord’s complaint panel response letter were as follows:
1. It said that it had seen no evidence to support the resident’s claim that she had made a RTB application in 2019.
2. It accepted that the delay in processing the resident’s 2020 RTB application had been unacceptable.
3. It said that it had not obtained a property valuation during the first Covid-19 lockdown, and that a substantial turnover in its homeownership staff had meant that it did not pick this up until the resident had more recently contacted it for an update.
4. It stated that the resident’s windows had been due for renewal in 2023, but would have been removed from the programme once her RTB application was received.
5. It said that whilst the resident believed that the landlord should have told her about her rights under the notice of delay procedure, it had confirmed that it had no obligation to do this.
6. It said that it could not agree to the resident’s request to be paid £6,500, that she felt represented the additional rent paid during the delay.
7. It confirmed that that her property valuation was based on the value when the resident submitted her RTB application, and as such she would not pay a higher price as a result of property price increases since that time.
8. It said that there had been confusion regarding the RTB discount arrangements, which it stated changed every year in line with the consumer price index. It said that it would revise its offer based on the most recent maximum discount, which would give the resident a further £400 discount.
9. It advised that the resident’s complaint had been upheld, and it apologised for its service failings. It said that it was increasing its previous offer of compensation to £700.
10. It detailed its learning from the resident’s complaint, which concerned its record keeping to ensure continuity of service after members of staff end their employment.
11. It confirmed that repairs had been raised following the attendance of its surveyor, and that it felt it was right to undertake these repairs in the circumstances. It agreed to complete the following:
  1. Renew the bathroom and kitchen fans;
  2. Refix bedroom floorboard;
  3. Fit staircase balustrading;
  4. Overhaul front door lock and four windows;
  5. Repair toilet cistern;
  6. Repoint the outhouse wall;
  7. Install radiators in the kitchen and small bedroom;
  8. Bedroom mould wash.
12. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 19 August 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that a further plastering job was completed at the resident’s property.
On 27 September 2021, the resident completed and signed a ‘RTB6 initial notice of delay’ form, in line with the statutory notice of delay procedure.
On 13 and 15 October 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that further carpentry and building jobs were completed at the resident’s property.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord’s solicitor produced its completion statement of the resident’s RTB purchase of her property.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord’s call record stated that the resident had called to voice her intense dissatisfaction with the works that the landlord had undertaken. The record stated that the resident had said that she considered the £700 compensation that she had been offered to be an insult, that there were repairs still outstanding, and that the landlord had had to repeatedly return to complete simple jobs.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that a visit was completed to the resident’s property.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with reference to her recent email and calls about repairs to her property. It stated that since the sale of her property had been completed on 18 October 2021, she was now responsible for any repairs and maintenance. It confirmed that it was no longer obliged to undertake any works to the resident’s property, and would not be doing so. It apologised for any confusion caused by its surveyor’s visit that had taken place after the property had been sold. It stated that the surveyor had been unaware that the property had been sold. It again referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident has since told this Service that some of the works that had been agreed by the landlord were still outstanding, and that those that were completed were done to what she felt was a very poor standard.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s position that she had made a previous RTB application to the landlord. However as no evidence of this has been seen, this assessment is focused on matters that occurred from 29 February 2020.
The resident’s RTB application was initially handled appropriately by the landlord, up to and including it formally acknowledging the application on 18 March 2020. This was a few days before the Covid-19 pandemic and first national lockdown began. As such it was understandable that this led to the RTB process being held up for at least some period of time. However, there was no evidence provided that the landlord made efforts to maintain contact or keep the resident informed. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to update the resident to delays in the process.
The resident queried with the landlord when the process would restart on 11 June 2020, but the landlord’s brief update only stated that it was unable to yet say. Again it would be expected that the landlord would have committed to providing regular and proactive updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord did this, and its actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident has said that over the following months she chased the landlord numerous times for updates, but the next record seen by this Service was the resident’s email to the landlord on 15 April 2021. This led to the resident making her complaint on 21 April 2021.
The landlord’s internal records from 29 April 2021 readily accepted that the resident’s RTB application had “fallen between the cracks”. Whilst the landlord did point to factors including the pandemic restrictions and a large turnover of staff, it did not dispute the delays and communications issues, nor the “very poor service” that it said that it had provided to the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our remedies guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did manage aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy and the Dispute Resolution Principles. However its offer of redress was neither fair nor proportionate to the consequences of its service failings, and the landlord failed to appropriately explain its position on crucial elements of the resident’s complaint. As such the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
Having made her complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss it with the resident, and to reach what she initially agreed was a fair resolution. The landlord detailed the agreed resolution in its stage one complaint response sent on 4 May 2021, and it was appropriate that it apologised to the resident for its service failings.
From June 2021, the landlord began undertaking repairs to the resident’s property that it had agreed as part of its proposed complaint resolution. The resident had said that she considered that the landlord should have identified the necessary works prior to her RTB application, as it was ‘not her job’ to report repairs. The resident’s tenancy agreement was clear regarding a tenant’s responsibility for reporting repairs, and the valuation of the property was based on its condition in February 2020.
The landlord’s repairs policy was also clear that all non-statutory works to a resident’s property would be cancelled following a RTB application, which the landlord advised to the resident in March 2020, and is standard throughout the sector. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to agree as part of its offer of redress, to undertake a range of works to the resident’s property that were not its responsibility. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
Having reflected on the resolution, the resident stated that she no longer considered it reasonable, and it was appropriate for the landlord to consider this as a complaint escalation request, which it acknowledged on 8 May 2021.
As referred to above, there are statutory timescales for a landlord to observe for the first two stages of a RTB sale. Where a landlord fails to meet either of these two timescales, there is a ‘delay notice procedure’ for residents to seek progress and redress. The delay notice procedure is explained on the RTB pages of the Government’s website, which includes both of the applicable forms needed for residents to use the procedure.
To use the delay notice procedure the resident must submit an ‘Initial Notice of Delay’ (RTB6) form to the landlord. The landlord must then either move the sale along within one month, or send a ‘counter notice’.
If the landlord does not respond to the RTB6 within one month, the tenant may submit an ‘Operative Notice of Delay’ (RTB8) form. The effect of submitting the RTB8 form is that any rent the resident pays whilst they are waiting for the landlord to respond, can be deducted from the sale price of the property.
In this instance, the landlord had met the first of the two statutory RTB timescales, but had failed to meet the second. The second statutory timescale states that once it has been established that the applicant has the Right to Buy, the landlord must send the resident a Section 125 offer notice within 8 weeks (for a freehold property) from the date that the RTB2 form was served.
The landlord served the resident her RTB2 form on 18 March 2020. As such the resident was entitled to submit her ‘Initial Notice of Delay’ (RTB6) form to the landlord, and use the delay notice procedure, from 13 May 2020.
The resident did not complete her RTB6 form until 27 September 2021. This meant that in effect she did not use the delay notice procedure, as her property purchase was completed less than a month later. It is not fully clear why the resident did not use the procedure much sooner. However given subsequent events, it is reasonable to conclude that for some period of time the resident was unaware of her right to use the delay notice procedure.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 June 2021, and detailed the outcomes of its panel meeting held on 8 June 2021. It is clear that the resident had become aware of the delay notice procedure by this time, as the outcome of the panel meeting stated that the resident had voiced her belief that the landlord should have advised her of it. The landlord’s complaint response also said that the resident had further stated that she believed that she should be reimbursed the rent she had paid during the delay period.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response stated that it did not agree that any rent should be reimbursed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why it believed this, rather than simply stating that it disagreed, and the landlord’s failure to do so was unreasonable. The landlord’s response further stated that it had confirmed that it had no obligation to make the resident aware of the delay notice procedure. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of how the landlord had reached that position, and further unreasonable that it failed to offer any explanation to the resident.
Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (“the Act”) sets out the provisions for the RTB process. Section 121AA of the Act obliges landlords to prepare and make available to tenants information they should have when considering whether to exercise the RTB. The information is prescribed by the Housing (Right to Buy)(Information to Secure Tenants)(England) Order, and includes the delay notice procedures. Section 121B of the Act provides that any document with the information should be published or otherwise made available to the tenant.
It is likely that the Ombudsman has not seen the entirety of the information that the landlord published or otherwise made available to the resident whilst she considered making her RTB application. It is also not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord met its statutory obligations and the threshold for the provision of RTB information, as defined by the Act.
That is a legal matter and as the Ombudsman’s orders are not legally binding, it would be more appropriately considered by the courts. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to this regard. However the Ombudsman has considered the impact on the resident of the landlord stating that it had no obligation to provide information about the delay notice procedure to the resident, without offering any explanation as to how it had reached that position.
The landlord accepted the delay and “very poor service” that the resident had experienced. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that its offer of redress was not proportionate to the severity of its failings.
The statutory timeframe for the landlord to issue the resident its offer letter was eight weeks, and ended on 13 May 2020. The landlord took almost 66 weeks to issue the resident its offer letter, which it did on 22 June 2021. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord pointed to the impact of the pandemic as one cause of the delays. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the start date of the eight week statutory timeframe was only days before the first lockdown began, and this would have impacted the landlord’s ability to obtain a property valuation. However, the landlord’s own records confirmed that it did not attempt to instruct an external surveyor to complete the valuation until mid-April 2021, some 48 weeks after the statutory timeframe to provide the resident with the valuation had ended.
It was reasonable for the landlord to use the 2021 RTB discount against the 2020 valuation of the resident’s property, which was financially beneficial to the resident. The landlord’s offer to complete works to the resident’s property that were not its responsibility, was also in line with the Dispute Resolution principle to Be fair, and demonstrated a reasonable effort to Put things right. The landlord’s complaint response also demonstrated its willingness to Learn from outcomes.
However, the resident described the further stress and disruption caused by what she felt was the landlord’s poor management of the works and repairs appointments, along with issues she described with the standard of workmanship. The resident complained that the works that the landlord had agreed to undertake were either incomplete or substandard, but the resident’s property purchase had completed by this time, and the landlord made clear that it would not do anything further. Whilst the works were not the landlord’s responsibility, they did represent a key part of its proposed complaint resolution and redress. As such the landlord raised the expectations of the resident, which it then failed to meet.
For the reasons explained above, the Ombudsman has not assessed whether the landlord met the statutory threshold for the provision of RTB information to the resident. For this reason, the Ombudsman will not make a determination concerning any potential deduction of rent payments from the property sale price, that the resident may have been entitled to had she used the statutory delay notice procedure. As above, that would be a matter more appropriate for the courts to consider, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this element of her complaint further.
However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted unreasonably in offering no explanation to the resident as to how it had concluded that it had no obligation to provide her with the relevant RTB information, that could have made her aware of her right to use the delay notice procedure. This could have influenced the resident’s thinking in deciding whether to seek independent legal advice, and potentially delayed or otherwise impacted her options to seek redress. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.
The time leading up to the purchase of a property is often a stressful period, and the move from renting, to home ownership, would have been a highly significant event to the resident. The landlord’s failings extended both this stressful period, and the time that the resident could have reasonably expected the purchase of her home to take, by in the region of 52 weeks. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord made any effort to maintain contact with the resident, nor keep her updated or appropriately informed during this period. The resident has also described her chasing of, and difficulties in getting meaningful engagement from the landlord. All of this would have significantly added to the distress, time and trouble that the resident experienced.
This has been assessed with consideration to the Ombudsman’s Remedy Guidance, and a compensation order has been made to this regard. The order is based on £100 per month for the time, trouble and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays from May 2020 to April 2021, for a total of £1200. A further £250 has been awarded for the distress caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint response to the resident, and its failure to provide explanations about crucial elements of it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about delays and repairs during the ‘Right to Buy’ (RTB) process.

Reasons

The landlord handled aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However the resident’s purchase of her property was delayed for around a year by the landlord’s failings. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the severity of those failings, nor the time, trouble and distress they caused to the resident.
It is of concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s complaint response offered only brief denials to the resident’s queries regarding its obligations to make RTB information available to her, with no explanation as to how it had reached that position.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report.
2. pays the resident £1,450 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £1,200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the delays and failures in its handling of the resident’s RTB application;
  2. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint response.
3. The amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £200 and £700 (if either or both of those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £1,450).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within six weeks the landlord:
1. reappraises its position regarding its obligations towards the provision of information to tenants who are considering an RTB application, and writes to the resident and this Service with its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.