Hyde Housing Association Limited (202103794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103794

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 March 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 responses to:
1. Repairs in the property.
2. Reports of intermittent heating and hot water.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2008. The property is a one bedroom flat.
On 27 October 2020, an inspection of the property was raised. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 10 November 2020.
Around 16 December 2020, the resident reported that they had no hot water. Thereafter, the Properties Services team asked the surveyor to provide an update from their inspection. The surveyor informed that they contacted the gas contractor regarding a repair to the hot water cylinder and had chased it for an update. The surveyor confirmed that they would raise the repairs to the property in the meantime.
On 21 December 2020, the surveyor raised repairs to the property under two separate orders. The first repair order was for the following work in various areas of the property:
1. The renewal of the bath mixer taps and shower.
2. The overhaul of the toilet cistern, which was making noise.
3. An inspection to investigate if there was leak from the above flat, as water marks were found on the resident’s hallway ceiling.
4. A repair to the kitchen window, as water was coming through the window when it rained.
5. A renewal of the timber back door frame and lock.
6. Renewal of the damaged wooden steps in the living room, leading to the back door.
The second order of repairs was for the following work to the kitchen:
1. Renewal of the kitchen sink worktop.
2. Supply and fit of a new door to the sink double base unit.
3. The renewal of a back panel in a side base kitchen unit.
4. Renewal of a plinth to a kitchen unit.
5. Overhaul of a wall unit that was loose to the frame.
6. Overhaul of the kitchen fan.
On 21 January 2021, the gas contractor attended to fit parts to the hot water cylinder and restored the hot water to the property.
The resident reported that the heaters in the property were not working on 16 February 2021. The gas contractor attended on 16 February 2021 however, reported that it was a no access. It followed this up and left the resident a voicemail on 20 February 2021.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord’s responsive repair contractor attended and completed part of the kitchen works raised in December 2020. It isolated the water, removed and refixed the sink and installed new tiles behind the sink. In addition, it reported that it overhauled the wall unit, renewed the door and draw to the sink base unit and renewed the sink worktop.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on the same day the contractor attended. She complained that her boiler had a fault and the contractor had missed a follow up appointment (the date this happened was not specified). She explained that her heating did not work properly and the hot water ran for no longer than 15 minutes. In addition to this, she complained that repairs throughout her property to the walls/ceilings, windows, bathroom, kitchen, balcony door and frame, remained outstanding. She advised that she had chased the landlord about these issues to no avail and asked the landlord to follow up on them.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day as receipt. It informed the resident that the complaints team would be in touch to discuss the case.
Before the landlord could speak with the resident, she reported on 4 March 2021, that there was an electrical fault with the boiler room which caused the boiler to explode. She said that she was left without power but managed to restore the power. She advised that the boiler had not been attended to despite her previously providing images of the landlord, showing leaks. The resident said that she did not feel safe.
The landlord arranged for the contractor to attend the same day as the report. The contractor informed that it replaced the programmer timer, explained the system to the resident and left the system working.
On 7 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord that she had not heard from it about her complaint and the issues were ongoing. She also reported that her toilet was not flushing and asked the landlord to arrange a survey of the property.
Between 7 April and 9 April 2021, the landlord made enquiries with the contractor and was informed that the contractor had only raised one of the works orders (for the kitchen repairs). The second order was therefore raised.
On 12 April 2021, the resident sent the surveyor an image of a panel that detached from the heating system. The landlord passed this onto the contractor and asked it to investigate. The contractor attended on 16 April 2021 and serviced the reverse coil cylinder system to improve the hot water temperature and heating consistency.
Between 17 and 20 May, the resident contacted this Service for assistance with the complaint as she had not heard from the landlord. Following an enquiry this Service made to the landlord, it contacted the resident to discuss the complaint, on 20 May 2021. Following this, it established that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. The condition of the windows, which she reported leaked internally when it rained. The resident said that her personal items including her laptop had been damaged as a result.
2. Inconsistent heating from the radiators.
3. The toilet flush was not working.
4. The stains to the ceiling following a leak from the property above. The resident advised that she did not believe that she should have to redecorate the stained area as she did not cause the damage.
5. The kitchen worktop that was renewed in March 2021, did not match the existing worktop.
6. The repair to her front door, which was reported on 7 May 2021, after a forced entry.
7. The balcony door frame that needed repair.
8. The kitchen floor which the resident said the surveyor agreed to replace.
9. Broken kitchen shelves.
10. Skirting in the kitchen was detached from the wall.
11. Damage to her washing machine by the contractor when it visit on 3 March 2021. The resident advised that the contractor was aware of the damage.
The landlord agreed to provide a response to the complaint by 2 June 2021. It advised the resident that it would not compensate for damage to personal items. It recommended that the resident contact her contents insurance.
Between 21 and 27 May 2021 the landlord made internal enquiries to confirm the status of the repair issues the resident had complained about. The contractor confirmed that it could not find a worktop to match the existing, and therefore chose the closest match. It advised that it was aware of the reported damage to the machine and noted that it disagreed that it had caused the damage but, it agreed nonetheless, to replace the washing machine. The contractor informed that an appointment would be confirmed for the repairs to the toilet, balcony door and windows. It indicated that it was awaiting an update regarding the repair to the front door. The contractor advised that the remainder of the issues complained about, that is, the stains on the ceiling, cracks in the walls, kitchen flooring, broken kitchen shelves and skirting reported to be coming away in the kitchen, were not issues that were included in the scope of works raised in December 2020. It asked the surveyor to confirm whether they were required, so that it could update the schedule of pending work. It also asked the landlord to clarify whether the skirting mentioned was wall skirting or the kitchen unit plinths. As well as this, it confirmed that the matter with the heating would need to be referred to the landlord’s gas contractor.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 June 2021 with a revised complaint response date of 16 June 2021. It explained the reason for this was because it was taking longer than it anticipated for it to get the information for the response.
The contractor attended to the resident’s property on 7 and 8 June 2021, to address the repairs to the toilet, balcony doors and the windows. The resident reported to the landlord on 8 June 2021, that the repairs to the toilet, the back panel to the kitchen unit and the kitchen plinth, were not addressed during the contractors visit.
This was raised to the contractor on 9 June 2021, who responded that the toilet was not done, as it was not making noise at the time of attendance. But it confirmed that it completed the other works to the bathroom as per the works order raised in December 2020 and also cleaned and reinstalled the toilet flush system. It said that it filled the back door where the timber had been broken and painted the internal frame and step leading to the back door. The contractor acknowledged the repair to back board of the kitchen unit was missed in March and agreed to reraise this. It confirmed that it would require an appointment to install a new front door, however, did not confirm when this would be. It advised that it had provisionally booked for a new washing machine to be installed to the property on 17 June 2021, but said it was waiting for the resident to confirm the date. The contractor asked the surveyor to make contact, as there was more work being requested than that specified on the December 2020 work orders. The contractor asked the surveyor for the photographs they had taken during their inspection so that it could check the completed work against the orders raised.
The surveyor responded and said that they had scoped the work required when they inspected, agreed those works with the resident on site and raised them accordingly. The surveyor acknowledged that the resident was not happy with the patch repair to the kitchen worktop but said they had spoken with the resident about this. The surveyor asked the contractor to confirm when the works were completed, so that they could post inspect. The surveyor did not provide the images requested by the contractor.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 15 June 2021. It confirmed that after the inspection in November 2020, the surveyor raised work to for the kitchen worktop, kitchen units and the kitchen fan. It said that it had since agreed to also add repairs to the door frames (it did not specify what doors frames it was referring to), the toilet, the heating and the windows.
In relation to the heating and hot water, it said that it attended to a report made on 16 February 2021 of a loss of heating, on 20 February 2021 but it was a no access. It confirmed that it attended again in March and April 2021 and the system was left working on both occasions. It apologised that the resident was not happy with the repair to the kitchen worktop and explained that its policy was to repair and as it could not match the existing worktop it provided the next available. It said about the kitchen flooring, that this was deemed the resident’s responsibility and advised that the inspection in November 2020 did not identify an issue with the floor. It advised that the water stains from the leak would be the responsibility for the resident and offered her a decoration voucher to assist with repainting the affected area. It said that if there was damage to the plaster, it could arrange a repair if the resident sent pictures. It said that cracks in the wall would also be the resident’s responsibility unless they were major cracks.
In response to the kitchen shelves, the landlord said that its contractor had confirmed it completed the repairs. It said the contractor attended and overhauled the windows, the balcony doors and the toilet on 7 June 2021. It confirmed what repairs the contractor reported it completed when it attended on 7 June 2021. It confirmed that it would arrange an appointment to fit a new front door and advised the resident to send an image of the temporary lock fitted to the front door after the forced entry.
The landlord confirmed that it found it should have addressed the outstanding repairs sooner and apologised to the resident. It offered the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and it offered an additional £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint. It reiterated its position regarding the replacement of the resident’s laptop and advised she contact her insurance. It confirmed that the washing machine would be replaced as a gesture of goodwill, on 17 June 2021.
Around 23 June 2021, the resident escalated their complaint. They reported that they understood from the information provided by the surveyor, that the entire kitchen worktop would be replaced as well as the kitchen flooring. She did not agree that the kitchen units were fixed as only one of the doors had been repaired. She also did not agree that the windows had been addressed and believed the damage to her laptop was due to negligence by the landlord in dealing with the window. She said that repairs were carried out to the balcony doors but they remained in poor condition and the toilet flush had stopped working since the contractor attended in June 2021. The resident confirmed that the heating and hot water was now working but was unhappy that she was left for years without it functioning properly. She also confirmed that the washing machine had not been replaced.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident on 28 July 2021. It acknowledged that it had not explained, completed and evidenced repairs to the balcony door and toilet as well as it could have. It apologised and accepted that this had led to confusion and caused the complaint to take longer to be resolved. It revised its offer of compensation and offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience of the repairs and £100 for the delay in its response to the complaint. In addition, it said that it would progress the offer to replace the resident’s washing machine up to a value of £280, as there was a disagreement about the model and value of the resident’s machine. It asked the resident to confirm the model they wanted from a specific brand, up to the value of £280.
It responded to the points the resident raised at stage two and acknowledged that it had said that the balcony door and toilet had been repaired but the resident had informed it otherwise. For the balcony doors, it said the repairs were completed but the doors needed sanding down and decorating. It confirmed it would complete the work by 20 August 2021. For the toilet, it said that it already arranged a further repair for this and understood that this was completed. It upheld the stage one responses in relation to the other matters and re offered the resident the decoration voucher for the stains on the ceiling.

Events after the complaints procedure

In August 2021, the landlord agreed to arrange another inspection of the property however, by 22 December 2021 this was not arranged and the resident contacted it again. The resident referred her complaint to the Service for investigation in on 23 December 2021. She confirmed that the washing machine had not been replaced, repairs to the kitchen, toilet, balcony door frames and the windows were incomplete. The resident also advised that the landlord had painted over the wall cracks but had not filled them and said that the heating and hot water was still sporadic.
In January 2022, the landlord agreed to pay the resident £280 directly, for the washing machine as the resident had not provided it with the model they wanted. It advised that the £300 it offered in the complaint response would be offset against arrears on the resident’s rent account in line with its policy.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed in May 2022, that an appointment was booked for 21 May 2022 for it to attend to repair the front door and the sanding and painting of the balcony doors. It advised the landlord that it did not have any order for the kitchen cupboards or the windows but agreed to attend to them when it visit. It has not been confirmed to this Service that the visit took place.
On 26 March 2023, the resident informed this Service that she had not received the compensation offered by the landlord, including that offered for the washing machine and said she was still experiencing issues with the heating and hot water. In addition, the resident reported that the repairs to the toilet, kitchen and balcony door frame, windows and the front door remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord has provided its repairs policy statement but this does not set out its responsibility for repairs. Therefore, this Service has relied on the repair responsibilities guidance published on the landlord’s website.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a repair responsibility for the structure and exterior of the building, including the maintenance of the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating. The landlord also has a repair responsibility for external doors and windows.
The landlord’s repair response times are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – which threaten health, safety or security or could cause significant damage to a property, including the loss of power, heating (between 1 October and 31 March) and hot water. Are to be attended to within four hours and made safe within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs are to be attended to within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the repairs

It is evident that there have been considerable delays in the landlord’s completion of the repairs, some of which have not been evidenced as completed.
After the initial inspection that took place on 10 November 2020, the works orders for the repairs were not raised until more than a month later, on 21 December 2020. Thereafter, it took the contractor another three months before it attended to carry out some of the kitchen repairs.
When the contractor initially attended to the property on 3 March 2020, it completed part of the works order that was raised. The explanation for this was that the contractor had missed the second work order that had been raised. It is acknowledged that administration errors can occur however, the landlord has not recognised the impact of this delay or explained the reason for the delay in its response to the resident.
The works completed in March 2020, were in relation to the work orders raised for the kitchen and the evidence provided in form of photographs and reports by the contractor, show that the majority of the repairs from the order were completed during this visit. However, there are some repairs specifically, that relating to the kitchen fan, the renewal of the kitchen plinth and the renewal of the back panel to the side base unit, that the contractor has not provided evidence for. Despite the lack of evidence that these works have been completed, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was satisfied the repairs it ordered to the kitchen were completed.
In response to the resident’s concern about the mismatching worktop the landlord has appropriately explained its position regarding this. The original work order was to replace the worktop to the sink area only and the contractor confirmed that it was unable to match the existing worktop. While the resident was unhappy with this, the landlord’s obligation is to ensure that the worktop was fit for purpose and there is no obligation for the landlord to replace the entire worktop based on the aesthetic. The resident reports that they were informed by the surveyor that the entire worktop would be replaced however, the original work order raised in December 2020 does not confirm this.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord found that the contractor had not raised the second work order relating to the repairs in various areas of the property, thus contributing to a further delay in the work being completed. At that time, it did not take the reasonable steps to ensure that the repairs were then promptly addressed by its contractor.
Between April and May 2021, the landlord and contractor were in contact regarding the repairs and the landlord was notified by the contractor that the works raised in December 2020, did not include some of the repairs the resident complained about. The contractor asked the landlord, in April 2021, to provide clarification on this, so that it could arrange all of the repairs however, the landlord failed to follow up with it. As the landlord completed the inspection, it was responsible for confirming what repairs it considered were required to the property so that its contractor was clear on what it was expected to do. It would have been beneficial, if the landlord carried out a further survey at that stage, as the resident had reported new repairs since the landlord’s inspection in December 2020.
In relation to the reported damage to the washing machine, the contractor confirmed awareness of this when the event occurred on 3 March 2021. Although it disagreed that its staff caused the damage, it agreed on 9 April 2021, to replace the washing machine as a gesture of goodwill, which was a reasonable offer to resolve the matter.
After the visit on 3 March 2021, the contractor did not attend to the property again to complete the remainder of the repairs raised in December 2020, until 7 and 8 June 2021. When it attended, it completed some of the repairs from those raised for the bathroom, the toilet and the balcony door but a number of repairs remained outstanding. The contractor confirmed on 9 June 2021, that it had missed the repair to the back panel of the kitchen unit and agreed to rebook this. However, there is no evidence that it ever did this. The contractor also did not provide any evidence that it addressed a number of other repairs, including that to the leaking windows, the kitchen plinth and the kitchen fan or the lock to the balcony door, all of which were raised in December 2020.
In June 2021, the contractor asked the landlord’s surveyor to provide the images that they took when they inspected the property in December 2020 so that it could check that the orders raised had been completed. The surveyor did not provide the images and said they would post inspect once the works had been completed. In the response to the complaint, the landlord stated that it believed the works were completed however, it did not arrange for the work to be post inspected despite its agreement to do so and the resident informing it that various repairs including that to the window, the toilet, the balcony door and the kitchen, were unresolved.
In response to the complaint, the landlord stated that considered that its contractor had completed the repairs to the kitchen, windows however, its findings are not supported by any sufficient evidence. While there is evidence that repairs were carried out to some of these areas there is no evidence of any repairs having been completed to the windows or some areas of the kitchen. The landlord was made aware by the resident within her complaint that some repairs to the toilet and the balcony had resolved the issues raised and other repairs, such as that to the windows were not addressed at all.
When the resident escalated their complaint and raised again that repairs had not been completed, the landlord agreed that it had not evidenced that the repair to the toilet and balcony had been completed. It reported that it had since the stage one response, arranged for the toilet to be repaired and believed that this was completed. There is no evidence that a further visit for the toilet took place after the contractor attended to the property on 7 June 2021.
The landlord confirmed that there was an outstanding repair to the balcony door and that this would be completed by 20 August 2021. However, it did not honour this agreement and the resident has reported as of March 2023, that the repair to the balcony door as well as repairs to the kitchen, windows and front remain outstanding. The landlord did not provide any offer of resolution for the repair to the windows which was not acceptable as there is no evidence that this repair was ever addressed.
The landlord also agreed to replace the resident’s front door and advised in its final response that it would contact the resident with an appointment date. There is no indication that these works have been completed and the resident has informed that the repair is outstanding therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair has not been addressed.
The landlord’s explained its position regarding the cracks to the walls and the kitchen flooring and its explanations are in line with its repair responsibilities. Its guidance explains that residents are responsible for minor repairs to plaster, including filling minor holes and cracks. It also states that the maintenance and replacement of floor coverings are the responsibility of a resident. The resident has advised that the landlord’s surveyor agreed to replace the flooring but there is nothing to confirm that this was agreed therefore, the landlord’s position on this was appropriate.
The landlord explained that the water stains from a previous leak from the flat above, was the resident’s responsibility. Its guidance notes that residents are responsible for redecoration. This Service has not been provided information about the leak and the cause of this leak so therefore, we cannot conclude whether the source of the leak was due to a repair responsibility of the landlord, which would justify the expectation that it redecorates after the leak was remedied. But the landlord offered the resident a decoration voucher, which was fair, as it would assist the resident in addressing the stain.
The resident reported that her laptop had been damaged by the water leaking from the window. Although the landlord accepts that the window needed repair, it was not provided evidence by the resident that the repair issue to the window caused damage to her laptop. Its compensation policy states that compensation may be offered where a resident has suffered a loss because of a service failure on its part. In the absence of evidence that the damage was caused by the leaking window, it would not be appropriate for the landlord to assess compensation for this. In addition, the resident has raised that she believes the landlord’s negligence is the reason for the damage, which would be something an insurer would consider. Therefore, the landlord’s advice that the resident consider a claim through their contents insurance was appropriate. Furthermore, the landlord advises its residents on its website, to obtain contents insurance in the case that their belongings are damaged and its advice was in line with this.
The landlord acknowledged in its response to the complaint that there were delays in it addressing the repairs to the property and the formal complaint. It offered the resident £200 in recognition of the delays in addressing the repair and £100 for the delay in addressing the complaint.
It was appropriate that it offered compensation for the delays as its compensation policy allows for it to, where it finds there has been a failure to deliver a satisfactory service. This Service understands that in line with the landlord’s policy, the compensation has been paid to the residents rent account as it was in arrears at the time. Its compensation policy confirms that payments of compensation are used to offset arrears in the first instance.
However, the level of compensation does not reflect the delays or the time and trouble the resident has spent to pursue the matters in the complaint. It took the landlord six months before it completed some repairs and while it deemed that the majority of the repairs were completed, there is no evidence that some of the repairs have been addressed.
The resident has also had to pursue the landlord for the repairs to be completed, raised a complaint and following the end of the complaints procedure, the repairs remained unresolved despite the landlord’s commitments. The landlord also has not fairly considered the concerns the resident raised about the extent of the repairs carried out.
The Ombudsman considers that an additional award of compensation is payable and has made an order for this below. The Ombudsman has also made orders for the landlord to attend to the property to address the repairs the resident has reported remain outstanding, as we are not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence that the repairs it agreed, have been completed.
The resident reports that to date, they have not received the payment of the £280 compensation the landlord agreed for the replacement washing machine. The agreement to pay the resident the funds directly was made after the complaints process had finalised and was reasonable as the resident did not provide the landlord information about the model they wanted. It expected that the resident would have now received this payment, as the landlord’s compensation policy confirms that payments for a replacement product are paid directly to the resident regardless of arrears on their rent account. However, the resident has informed that she has not received the payment therefore, the Ombudsman has made a further order that the landlord ensures that it does this.

The landlord’s response to the report of intermittent heating and hot water.

The repair records confirm that the resident reported a loss of hot water on 16 December 2020. Its contractor did not attend to repair this until 21 January 2021. As the resident reported a loss of hot water, it is expected that the landlord would have attended to this as a matter of urgency. The landlord therefore failed to attend to the report in line with its policy.
The landlord has not considered its response to this report within its investigation of the complaint and therefore have not acknowledged this service failure or offered redress to the resident in relation to this.
The landlord’s records show that the resident subsequently reported three more reports about the heating and hot water system, between 16 February and the and 12 April 2021. The report on 16 February 2021, was attended to outside of the landlord’s emergency timeframe for reports of this nature, as it was raised in February, when it considers a loss of heating as an emergency. The resident missed this appointment but did not raise a report about a fault with the system again until 4 March 2021.
Thereafter, the landlord’s responded to the reports in line with its response times. The report on 4 March 2021, suggested that the boiler had exploded and the contractor attended the same day to restore the system. The report on 12 April 2021 was not about a loss of utilities, but a detached panel, therefore, was a non-emergency and was attended to within four working days.
The landlord did not receive any further reports about the heating hot water again and the resident confirmed when they escalated the complaint, that the system was working. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude in its final response, that it had left the system working when it attended.
However, it was not appropriate that the landlord had not recognised in its investigation, the fact that the resident was left without hot water for over a month after the report made on 16 December 2021. This would have caused the resident a serious inconvenience and was a significant failure on the landlord’s part. In recognition of the delay in the landlord’s response to the loss of heating and hot water on 16 December 2020, the Ombudsman has made an order for compensation.
The resident has reported to this Service in March 2023, that an issue with the heating and hot water remains. Given this, an order has been made for the landlord to investigate the system.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of intermittent heating and hot water.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord addressing the repairs and the landlord have not relied on satisfactory evidence to satisfy itself that the repairs have been completed. The landlord also made agreements in its complaint response, to complete further repairs following the complaints procedure and failed to follow through on these actions.
The majority of the landlord’s visits to the heating and hot water system were in line with its repair response timeframes and the evidence supports that the system was left in working order following each visit. However, following the initial report of a loss of hot water on 16 December 2020, the landlord did not attend to the property until over a month later. The landlord has not taken this into consideration in its investigation of the complaint or offered the resident any redress for the inconvenience caused as a result of this.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord, within four weeks, pay the resident £1010 comprising of:
1. £280 it offered the resident for the washing machine replacement.
2. £450 for the delays in the completion of the repairs to the property.
3. £180 for the delay in restoring the hot water in the property following the report on 16 December 2020.
4. £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter.

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

The landlord is to arrange for a survey of the property to take place, within four weeks (subject to the resident’s availability) to inspect the following:
1. Toilet.
2. Kitchen.
3. Balcony door frame.
4. Windows
5. Front door.
6. Heating and hot water system.
Within a week of the survey being carried out, the landlord is to write to the resident with confirmation of what repairs, if any, it has identified are required to the above. When doing so, it is to provide timescales for the completion of any repairs.
The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service, that the above orders have been complied with.