The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Home Group Limited (201914309)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914309

Home Group Limited

31 March 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from the local authority.
  2. The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property in 2016 to 2018.
  3. The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property in 2019 to 2020.
  4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from it.
  5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(e) and (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from the local authority.
  2. The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property in 2016 to 2018.
  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which: “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. Therefore, this investigation will not determine the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for re-housing from the local authority. This is because complaints that relate to reasonable preference applications for re-housing specifically made to the landlord when acting on behalf of the local authority, the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  2. Furthermore, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from August 2019 onwards, which is within six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint being made on 23 December 2019. As a result, this investigation will not determine the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to his property in 2016 to 2018 because the complaint was not made within a reasonable period of these matters arising.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies the property with his family.
  2. The property is a three-bedroom, semi-detached house.
  3. It has been noted that the landlord was aware of mobility and developmental issues among the resident’s family in the property.
  4. The landlord’s records, dated 11 October 2018, show that the resident reported issues with the electric gates and the impact that this had on his lifestyle at the time. Moreover, the resident advised that he felt that the area the property was situated in, and the noise that resulted from this, worsened one of his children’s medical condition’s symptoms. He also felt that the property was no longer suitable for his family due to its size and layout.


Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident contacted it to:
  1. Report loss of pressure issues to the property’s gas boiler on 6 August and 17 September 2019 that it attended on 13 August and 20 September 2019.
  2. Report that water was entering the property through the back door and that it could not be contained on 24 September and 11 October 2019 that it attended on 24 September and 28 October 2019.
  3. Request an update on the repair to the electric gates on 29 October 2019.
  1. The landlord arranged an appointment for 28 October 2019, to carry out repairs to the property’s guttering and back door. A second appointment was arranged for water flooding the property from the back door and attended on 19 December 2019, when the landlord’s contractor determined that the back door needed to be replaced following the resident’s report of this on the same date.
  2. On 23 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to lodge a stage one complaint, in respect of its handling of the repairs to his back door. The landlord’s records show that the resident was unhappy with the amount of time that it was taking for the repair to be completed because water “flooded” the property every time it rained, which he felt was a “health and safety risk” as a slip and electrical hazard. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 December 2019, to report that one of the radiators in the property “came away from the plasterboard”, which it attended on the same date.
  3. On 23 January 2020, the landlord’s notes showed that it arranged for four oil-filled radiators to be provided to the resident as an alternative heating method, while the gas boiler was “not in use”. Furthermore, its notes from 24 January 2020 stated that an engineer attended the resident’s property on that date with regard to a carbon monoxide investigation, that the work was completed, the gas supply was uncapped, and that heating and hot water were functional. However, the landlord’s records dated 27 January 2020 showed that another appointment was arranged for that afternoon as seven radiators were “not working”.
  4. On 10 February 2020, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had previously logged a formal complaint with the landlord, concerning a potential gas or carbon monoxide leak, but that he was yet to receive a response. As a result, this Service wrote to the landlord on that date and requested it to provide a written update to the resident within 21 days.
  5. The landlord’s records show that, between the above date and 10 March 2020, there was further communication between the resident and landlord in respect of repairs to the rear electric gates. On 10 March 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and aired the radiators, but these were heating partially. As a result, a survey of the heating installation was requested.
  6. On 18 March 2020, the landlord issued the resident’s stage one complaint response, confirming that the following matters were raised:
  1. Rear electric gates stopped working – the landlord advised that these needed to be replaced, that it could not do this due to the “extremely high” costs involved, and it offered to “change them to manual gates”.
  2. Rear and front doors and one of the bedroom windows let in draughts and water – the landlord advised that it had raised works to provide “more substantial rubber seal on the front door” and “an order to replace the weather seal on the rear small bedroom” to address these issues. A new rear door was also expected to arrive from suppliers that week, scheduled to be installed on 8 April 2020 and would be fitted sooner if the door was delivered earlier than anticipated.
  3. The resident requested for a light to be fitted to the front door – the landlord advised that it raised a work order for the light to be installed.
  4. Issues with the heating system – the landlord confirmed that a survey was carried out by its contractor and was “awaiting” the “findings”. Furthermore, the landlord advised that it had been informed by its contractor that the heating system was “in full working order”.
  5. “The radiator in the downstairs hallway” needed to be reattached to the wall – the landlord confirmed that it made a request for a gas engineer to reattach this.
  6. The property lacked insulation – the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for surveys to be carried out to the wall cavity and loft insulation, to determine if improvements were needed.
  7. The tree on the neighbouring property was “hitting” the resident’s roof – the landlord confirmed that it was in the process of arranging for this to be “cut back” and pruned.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was not happy with the above outcome and confirmed that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to the second and final stage of its complaint procedure.
  1. On 27 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the escalation of his complaint to the second and final stage of its complaints procedure and advised that, as an outcome, he would like for “all repairs to be completed”. The landlord’s notes on the matter stated that the repairs were “yet to be appointed” because its contactor had advised it that they would not attend the property without one of its representatives being present, with the property’s electric gates also being “too expensive to repair”.
  2. Subsequently, the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone on 30 March 2020 regarding his request for his priority banding for a transfer from the local authority to be changed and to move property, for which the landlord advised him that it was liaising with the local authority. Additionally, the landlord and the resident discussed the repair issues addressed in the stage one complaint response above, and it confirmed that most of the repairs and surveys would be carried out once the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic were eased.
  3. On 30 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, as a result of a telephone conversation that it had with him on 25 June 2020. Among other matters, the landlord advised that it was informed that its contractor had arranged appointments to carry out repair works to the loose radiator, rear door, and bedroom window. It also confirmed that the front door repair had already been completed.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the insulation survey at the property was carried out on 8 July 2020 and the survey report was sent to the landlord on 23 July 2020. The surveyor advised that they had inspected the loft insulation and found that this met the “requirements” imposed at the time that the property was built. Furthermore, the surveyor reported that they could not inspect the wall cavity insulation as this would require “removal of a section of plasterboard lining”. The surveyor also advised that increasing insulation to the resident’s property would be “very difficult and costly to undertake” due to the construction type.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 and 20 July and 5 August 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with the amount of time that the landlord was taking to carry out repairs to the back door, downstairs hallway radiator, and to cut back the trees from the neighbouring property. Subsequently, the resident emailed the landlord on 14 August 2020, and confirmed that the trees had been cut back; however, he was not satisfied with the standard of the work carried out.
  6. The surveyor who carried out the property’s insulation survey on 8 July 2020 wrote to the resident on 26 August 2020 in respect of the initial survey, and a further meeting that took place on 7 August 2020. In this letter, the surveyor concluded that the loft insulation found in the resident’s property met current standards. Furthermore, the surveyor confirmed that they had attended the property a second time, on 7 August 2020, to carry out an inspection of the wall insulation. The landlord’s contractor removed and replaced the resident’s back door at that time and the surveyor found that this met the insulation requirements at the time that the house was built too. The surveyor also explained that “the cost of increasing the insulation and the disruption that would be caused cannot be justified”.
  7. On 16 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding his request for compensation for the increase in food and electricity costs, during the period that the boiler was not functional, and for the inconvenience caused by the amount of time that the landlord took to address repairs.
  8. The landlord issued the stage two final complaint response to the resident on 24 November 2020, comprised of the following:
  1. Works for the external light were completed on 6 July 2020.
  2. The trimming of the tree that was hanging from the neighbouring property was due to be carried out on 13 July 2020; however, “this could not go ahead (…) due to the cost involved and budget allowances”. The landlord confirmed that its contractor only lifted the branches on 14 August 2020 and a tree surgeon attended on 17 September 2020, which the resident had subsequently confirmed had satisfactorily resolved the issues raised.
  3. The repair works to reseal the upstairs back bedroom window due to draughts were completed on 13 July 2020.
  4. In respect of the resident’s concerns regarding the level of insulation of the property, the landlord advised that, as the surveyor found that the property was “adequately insulated and there were no recommendations” it would not carry out any works to this.
  5. The back door was replaced on 7 August 2020 and the repair works to the front door were completed on 20 November 2020.
  6. The landlord confirmed that the electric gates found at the rear of the property were fitted for the previous occupier of the property and that the resident was informed, at the beginning of his tenancy, that these would not be maintained following his mutual exchange there, as the gates were “old and considered at the end of life cycle.” The landlord advised that it had reviewed this matter internally and found that the resident could either leave the gates open permanently, to allow car access, or he could park in a different disabled bay. Moreover, the landlord addressed the resident’s concern that his children might leave the property’s garden if the gates were left open and advised that in order to have this decision reviewed, he would need to contact the local authority for an occupational therapy assessment to be conducted.
  7. The landlord also confirmed that it had replaced the faulty electric gates with manual ones, that the works were completed on 11 November 2020, and that the resident had previously advised he was happy with this.
  8. The landlord advised that it would not formally investigate additional repair issues that were not part of the resident’s original complaint, but it confirmed that it had assisted him with progressing these as well.
  9. With regard to the resident’s request for re-housing and the change of priority banding for a transfer from the local authority, the landlord advised that it was liaising with the local authority and waiting for an occupational therapy assessment to be carried out. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that it had offered to assist the resident with finding alternative accommodation from it that it had previously offered him a property that he had declined in May 2019, or a mutual exchange that he had confirmed that he was registered for. The landlord advised that the type of property sought by the resident was rare, but that it had noted his areas of interest and had expanded its search by contacting its housing managers in those areas monthly and agreeing to contact him as soon as a suitable property was available.
  10. In respect of the resident’s request for compensation, the landlord advised that it was still waiting for the resident to either provide receipts or confirm the expenses that he had incurred for food and electricity for the period that the gas supply was capped. Furthermore, the landlord offered him total compensation of £165 for delays and inconvenience, which was broken down into £55 each for missed contractor’s appointments, manual gates delays, and tree trimming delays.
  1. On 7 December 2020, the landlord offered the resident compensation for the amount of £250, which was in addition to the above compensation offer of £165, to cover the expenses incurred by the resident while the property’s gas supply was capped at the beginning of 2020. Although he complained to this Service about the level of compensation awarded to him by the landlord, as well as about its handling of the above issues including in light of his household’s medical conditions and disabilities.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the above issues have exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the remit or expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s recent actions and the resident’s medical condition, and so this has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
  2. Similarly, in his correspondence to the landlord, the resident accused it of “disability discrimination” in relation to its handling of the above matters. However, this Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as we do not have the legally-binding authority to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might, and so this has not been considered in this investigation.

The tenancy agreement

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is “to keep in repair, the structure and exterior of the premises, including…gutters…outside doors…window frames…means of access; plasterwork…To keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by [it]…for space heating, water heating…and central heating installations. To take reasonable care to keep the common entrances…in reasonable repair…and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers of and visitors to the premises.”

The landlord’s property management policy

  1. The landlord’s property management policy defines repairs that fall within its responsibility and “are not planned or carried out whilst the property is void” as responsive repairs.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance standard operating procedures

  1. The landlord divides and schedules repairs based on priority and aims for:
  2. “Responsive repairs” to be carried out within 14 calendar days.
  3. “Repairs where specialist components or major works are identified” to be carried out within 56 calendar days.
  4. Gas emergencies are to be attended within six hours and completed within 24 hours.

The landlord’s website

  1. It is noted that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and Government restrictions imposed, the landlord’s website states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 12 weeks.
  2. The landlord’s website confirms that it is responsible for the upkeep and repair of the heating system, internal and external door, window frames and fittings, property structure, gates and trees in communal areas “not adopted by a local authority”.

The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy

  1. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states that it may offer “modest monetary awards” when investigating a formal complaint where a service failure is found.


The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property in 2019 to 2020

  1. The resident reported that the property’s electric rear gates had stopped working on various occasions. On 29 October 2019, the resident asked the landlord for an update as to when this would be remedied. This issue was addressed during the complaint investigation on 18 March and 24 November 2020 and the electric rear gates were replaced with manual ones on 11 November 2020. Considering the nature of the work required to remedy the above issue, the landlord failed to comply with the timescales set in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance standard operating procedures above at paragraph 32. This is because the repair, where specialist components or major works were identified, should have been completed within 56 calendar days.
  2. However, based on the information provided to this Service, the landlord considered the resident’s request to replace the gates on a like-for-like basis and attempted to obtain different quotes to do so that led it to determine on 18 March 2020 that this was too expensive. The landlord also informed the resident on 24 November 2020 that the electric gates had been fitted for the previous occupier and that his own mobility needs would not meet the requirements for having electric rear gates. This is because it told him that he could either permanently leave open the alternative manual gates that it had installed or park in a different disabled bay, as well as contact the local authority for an occupational therapy assessment for new electric gates in light of his concerns for his children’s safety.
  3. In respect of the above, the landlord exceeded its responsibilities and offered reasonable redress. This is because it attempted to cater to the resident’s request for replacement electric rear gates, advised him that it would need an occupational therapy report to justify the need for electric rear gates and installed manual gates, which it told him how to use in order to meet his access concerns. The landlord also offered him compensation of £55 for the delays in obtaining a quote for the manual gates from August to November 2020, which was in line with its discretionary compensation policy above at paragraph 36 that permitted it to do so to recognise this.
  4. Since 24 September 2019, the resident had been reporting issues (draught and water ingress) with the property’s back and front doors, and one of the bedroom windows. The landlord attended the property, in respect of these issues, on various occasions from 24 September 2019 onwards; however, the landlord confirmed that the back door was replaced on 7 August 2020 and repair works were completed on 13 July 2020 to the bedroom window and 20 November 2020 to the front door.
  5. Considering that the above repair issues were reported to the landlord prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set in its repairs and maintenance standard operating procedures above at paragraphs 31 to 32. These were 14 calendar days for responsive repairs and 56 calendar days for repairs that required “specialist components”. However, the landlord sought to put right the disruption caused by its contractor’s missed repair appointments by offering the resident £55 compensation for these on 24 November 2020.
  6. Since 6 August 2019, the resident began reporting various problems with the gas boiler and heating system, such as pressure issues, carbon monoxide concerns, and one radiator coming off the plasterboard. The landlord addressed the above issues from 13 August 2019 onwards and capped off the gas supply and supplied the resident with an alternative heating method, in the form of oil filled radiators, on 23 January 2020; carried out a carbon monoxide investigation; and uncapped the gas supply on 24 January 2020.
  7. During the above appointment attended on 24 January 2020, the landlord’s contractor restored the resident’s gas supply and identified that seven of the radiators found in the property were not functional. As a result, the landlord arranged another appointment and the radiators were aired on 10 March 2020; however, as they were only heating partially, the landlord arranged for a heating investigation to be carried out. On 18 March 2020, the landlord confirmed that the investigation had been completed and that the heating system was fully functional. In respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system, the therefore landlord took reasonable steps to put things right by:
  1. Providing the resident with an alternative heating method.
  2. Carrying out carbon monoxide and heating systems investigations along with remedial works.
  3. Adhering to the timeframes set in its repairs and maintenance standard operating procedure above at paragraph 33 by completing gas emergency works within 24 hours.
  4. Offering compensation of £250 on 7 December 2020 to cover the costs incurred by the resident while the gas supply was capped.
  1. The resident also raised concerns regarding the level of insulation of the property. The landlord addressed these in its stage one complaint response, issued on 18 March 2020, by confirming that it had arranged surveys to investigate this and then appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loft insulation on 8 July 2020 and the cavity wall insulation on 7 August 2020. Taking into account the specialist, non-urgent nature of this work, along with the Government lockdown restrictions imposed at the time, the landlord handled this matter in a timely and efficient manner.
  2. This Service appreciates the resident’s concerns regarding the insulation of his property and its ability to keep warmth in. However, the landlord could reasonably be expected to adhere to the surveyor’s expert findings that the property was “adequately insulated” so that further insulation was not required and to not carry out improvement works to the insulation in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
  3. The resident also raised concerns regarding a tree that was hanging over his property, from the neighbouring garden, and requested for a light to be fitted by the front door. These issues were addressed by the landlord in its stage one complaint response, issued on 18 March 2020, when it explained that it was arranging for the tree to be “cut back” and pruned and for the light to be installed. The landlord confirmed that a light was fitted by the resident’s front door on 6 July 2020 and that the tree’s branches were taken back on 14 August 2020 and then the works to the latter were completed by a tree surgeon on 17 September 2020.
  4. Taking into account the nature of the above specialist, non-urgent works and that they were ordered by the landlord just prior to the Government lockdown restrictions coming into force, it is unlikely that the landlord would have had the chance to carry these out as per its usual timescales. However, once the restrictions eased, the landlord completed the works in a timely manner, compliant with its website’s new turnaround time for repairs of 12 weeks above at paragraph 34. It also recognised the delay in completing the above tree trimming by offering the resident £55 compensation in recognition of this on 24 November 2020.
  5. To conclude, this Service appreciates that the volume of repair issues may have caused difficulties for both parties. However, except for missed contractor’s appointments and manual gates and tree trimming delays, the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident and address his repair concerns. Furthermore, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures by completing outstanding works, offering compensation in line with its discretionary compensation policy and for the costs incurred by the resident while the heating system was not functioning. As the policy did not oblige it to offer him a higher level of compensation and gave it discretion to decide how much compensation that it awarded, it was not required to increase this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from it

  1. As detailed in the jurisdiction section at the beginning of this report, this Service cannot consider complaints which relate to a reasonable preference application for re-housing specifically made to the landlord when acting on behalf of the local authority. However, we can investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from it.
  2. Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident raised various concerns regarding the suitability of his current property because of his mobility issues and overcrowding. In respect of the above, the landlord handled the resident’s request reasonably and efficiently because it offered to assist him with alternative accommodation or a mutual exchange. It did so on 24 November 2020 by offering him other accommodation provided by it by noting his areas and properties of interest, contacting its housing managers in those areas for vacancies, agreeing to contact him as soon as a suitable property was available and confirming that he was registered for a mutual exchange.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord exceeded its responsibilities in this instance because it took into account the resident’s preferred areas and property type and expanded its search, to ensure that all avenues were exhausted. This meant that there was no further action that it could reasonably take to seek to re-house him itself.

The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. The landlord aims to resolve stage one complaints within ten working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot resolve a complaint within the indicated timeframes, the landlord commits to contacting the resident to advise why it could not offer a resolution within those timescales and to provide its alternative response timeframe, which it is permitted to extend by a further ten working days.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a stage one formal complaint on 23 December 2019. Due to having no response from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service on 10 February 2020. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and requested that it provide a written update within 21 days; however, the initial written correspondence from it in respect of the resident’s complaint was the stage one complaint response issued on 18 March 2020.
  2. Taking the above into account, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint because:
  1. It failed to comply with its complaints, compliments and comments policy above at paragraph 52 because it did not resolve the resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days, nor did it keep him informed throughout the process.
  2. Additionally, the resident failed to comply with its policy’s above requirements following this Service’s request to provide a written update within 21 days from contact.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property in 2019 to 2020 satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for re-housing from it.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord addressed the concerns raised by the resident; carried out surveys and inspections; acknowledged the delays caused; completed outstanding works; and offered compensation for the delays, inconvenience and costs incurred by the resident.
  2. The landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the resident’s request for re-housing from it internally by offering assistance with finding alternative accommodation with it or a mutual exchange.
  3. The landlord failed to respond and resolve the resident’s stage one complaint, in line with its complaints, compliments and comments policy’s timescales. Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide a written update to the resident within the timescale indicated by the policy, including after being contacted by this Service.

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £75 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling, along with the amounts of £165 and £250 compensation that it initially offered the resident if he has not received these already.
  2. The further amount has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and it is to be paid to the resident within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides further complaints handling training to its staff to ensure that, moving forward, complaints are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner, as specified by its complaints, compliments and comments policy.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.