London Borough of Ealing (202209234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209234

London Borough of Ealing

31 January 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbouring property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. The residents request to be compensated for financial loss.
This service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman will not consider claims for financial loss. This is because this Service does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and this Service cannot provide a legal determination.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c. The residents request to be compensated for financial loss.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of complaint, the resident was a leaseholder of the property which was a first floor maisonette within a block comprised of both tenanted and leasehold properties. The resident rented out his property. Since approaching this Service the resident has sold the property.
The landlord was the freeholder and had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The leak and the landlord’s investigations involved 2 flats located above the resident’s flat. These will be referred to as Flats A and B throughout this report.
Under the lease the landlord is responsible to repair and maintain the structure of the building, this includes nonexclusive pipework.

Policies and procedures

The landlords draft repairs procedure states it is responsible for “all repairs to the structure, exterior of the building, common parts, and all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation, including baths, basins, toilets and sinks provided by the landlord”.
The landlords draft repairs procedure defines a recall as: “where a repair needs to be repeated due to a problem with the work done originally, or a failure of a part, within 24 hours, the contractor will be contacted to reattend, and a works order reissued with zero value”.
The landlords website states that it has 2 repair priorities:
1. Emergency repairs “to remove immediate danger to people, avoid flooding or major damage to the property, or to make the property secure” will be attended to within 1 working day.
2. Routine repairs “is for work inside or outside your home where the problem does not cause immediate inconvenience or present a danger to occupants or the public”. Will be offered at the next available appointment, unless it is a communal area. The landlords draft procedure at the time stated these repairs would be responded to “no later than 15 working days”.
The landlords guidance on compensation payments says compensation may be awarded to remedy a service failure “causing injustice to the complainant”. This guidance says there are 3 areas where compensation could be paid in relation to day to day repairs, time and trouble is one of these. It gives a guideline for figures of time and trouble payments as below:
1. Stage 1- Minimum £10, maximum £50
2. Stage 2- Minimum £50, maximum £150
3. Stage 3- Minimum £100 Maximum £250
The landlords corporate complaint policy defines a complaint as: “Any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or several individuals.”
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process, both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. It notes in its complaints policy that if this timescale needs to be extended the resident must be informed of the reasons why and given a new expected date of response.

Summary of events

This investigation was hampered to an extent due to the quality of the landlord’s records as it was sometimes difficult to track progress on individual repairs and communications, as will be highlighted by this report.
The landlord raised a works order on 5 February 2021 to repair a leak from the balcony of flat A which was affecting the residents property. The works order references an email of 8 April 2020 and an “ongoing possible leak from the balcony” which was going into the living room. This job was marked as complete on 16 February 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 February 2021 and requested to be kept up to date when access was required for scaffolding to be erected in his garden.
A further works orders was logged on 3 March 2021, this detailed works to renew “asphalt” to balcony due to “multiple leaks” from balcony of flat A above, into the residents property. The notes on this works order state the balcony of flat A needed to be cleared as was “full of rubbish” and belongings. The operative also noted he thought the leak in the bedroom of the residents property “was due to the hopper” which was blocked above it, this was unblocked on this visit. This job was marked as complete on the landlords system on 30 June 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 7 occasions between 8 March 2021 and 13 April 2021 to chase a date for when the works would be scheduled for.
According to the landlords repairs log, the resident contacted it on 3 June 2021 to advise the contractor refused to do the repair to the above balcony as it had not been cleared. The notes also state the contractor contacted the landlord this day also to advise if the balcony was cleared, they could reattend tomorrow. The landlord advised it required a report from this visit and to place the works on hold. The landlord also noted a call to the tenant of flat A about the belongings needing to be cleared.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 June 2021, within this email he stated he had reported water damage and the leak in early January. Over a period of 7 months he had been in contact daily with the repairs department, housing officer, contractor, and sub-contractor. The scaffolding had gone up on 10 May 2021 but no work had taken place. The resident described this as a safety risk as “anyone can jump over my fence and get access to my property or any of the flats above”. He concluded this email with a statement that said if the landlord did not respond within 7 days, he would instruct solicitors to deal with the matter.
The landlord responded on 23 June 2021 to advise it had escalated the residents request and asked someone from the repairs team to contact him within 48 hours.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 July 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had confirmed contractors had been on site and would like the scaffold removed as soon as possible.
On 12 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord he had cancelled his service charges until the problem with the leak was resolved. He also advised he would be seeking compensation for the inconvenience and upheaval his tenants had and continued to experience.
A recall works order was logged by the landlord on 13 July 2021, the detail stated, “balcony still leaking please return and rectify”. This job was completed on 28 July 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 July 2021. Its response stated it received the resident’s complaint from the Ombudsman about the length of time taken to resolve a leak affecting the resident’s property. Within its response, the landlord said:
1. An order was first logged on 5 February 2021 to rectify an “ongoing leak” possibly from flat 6. Its contractor attended on 16 February 2021 and reported 2 leaks affecting the property, 1 from the gutters and 1 from the balcony of flat 6.
2. The report detailing the repairs required needed to be signed off by an area supervisor who subsequently asked for further clarification prior to authorising. This created a delay and the landlord apologised for this.
3. The repairs were scheduled for the 3 June 2021, but could not go ahead as the balcony above had not been cleared of belongings.
4. Following contact with the flat above, a further appointment was made on 30 June 2021. The contractor applied a “GRP system” and repaired a downpipe at this visit.
5. Unfortunately, the leak remained and appeared to be coming from 2 flats above. The contractor attended on 28 July 2021 and reported cracks to the cast iron outlets on the parapet wall, attached to some of the balconies of flats.
6. It was awaiting a report from its contractor about the subsequent repairs required following this visit.
The landlord apologised for the time take to trace the leak and the inconvenience caused, it offered £50 compensation. The landlord confirmed it would not decorate upon completion of the repair as it was not its policy to do so and advised the resident, he would need to claim through his insurers for this. It also said the service charge for repairs to the building would not be refunded based on the service experienced and apologised again that the service fell short of what was expected.
On 9 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised the property had experienced another leak over the past weekend, at the end of this email he requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2. He said he was “totally fed up” with the lack of service from the landlord and challenged the below points from the landlords stage 1 response.
1. The length of the delay for the report to be authorised was unacceptable.
2. All the contact and chasing had been done by him.
3. The property above should have been aware access was required to the balcony prior to the work being scheduled in.
4. The compensation offer of £50 was an “insult”.
5. The landlord had organised redecoration a few years prior when a similar situation had occurred.
6. He found it “astonishing” that the surveyor would not meet him at his property to inspect the damage and arrange for a proper repair.
7. He concluded by advising he was now looking to recoup the loss in his rental income as well as “major compensation”.
A works order for follow on works was logged on 9 August 2021. The notes on this order detail the problem to be the cast iron pipes that connect onto the “balcony outlets which are cracked”. This job was marked as completed on 22 October 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the residents stage 2 complaint escalation request on 27 August 2021 and advised it aimed to respond by 24 September 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 14 September 2021 to chase the outstanding repairs. He called the landlord again on 24 September 2021 to ask if the resident above had been advised to clear the balcony before the repair appointment.
On 4 October 2021, the landlords repair log noted the resident was not happy it did not attend 2 scheduled appointments.
A further works order was logged as follow on works on 28 October 2021. The operative who attended this job said they did not think “it’s anything to do with the balcony I’ve noticed cracks in the cast iron outlets that go for the parapet wall and are used as a balcony outlet therefore leaking through the parapet wall into the property below”. It was noted on this order that the residents property was affected by both the balconies of flat A and B, which required “core drilling installing new outlets and waterproofing”. This job was marked as completed on the landlords system on 2 November 2021.
On 11 November 2021, the residents solicitors wrote to the landlord requesting financial compensation for losses of £2870. This letter highlighted the resident had not received a stage 2 response.
On 8 December 2021, the residents solicitors wrote to the landlord following its letter dated 11 November 2021, to which it had received no response. This letter stated a telephone call with the landlord on 3 December 2021 where the solicitor was advised the letter had not been allocated to anyone to deal with the matter.
A further works order was raised on 15 December 2021 as a “recall” from a previous job, this noted reports of a leak which affected living room of the residents property from flat A. This job was marked as completed on 1 February 2022.
The resident called the landlord on multiple occasions since the above works order was raised up to February 2022 and requested an update on the outstanding repairs. Notes from the repairs log state the resident had also logged a stage 2 complaint but had not heard anything.
On 10 February 2022, the residents solicitors wrote to the landlord following its letters dated, 11 November 2021 and 8 December 2021. This letter highlighted that the resident had not yet received a stage 2 response and it was highlighted in its letter dated 11 November 2021 also. This letter also advised the resident had a claim against the landlord for nuisance in failing to prevent the continuing water ingress into the property. It requested a meaningful response otherwise would be forced to issue proceedings for an injunction and damages plus costs.
The landlord attended the residents property and flat A on 7 March 2022, following the works order dated 15 December 2021. The operative on this visit stated he found the tenants of flat A had “blocked the balcony outlet with belongings”. The belongings were moved and the tenants advised it must remain clear. Further works were noted from this operative which detailed “mastic beed introduced to some areas of pointing as big holes in areas”.
On 11 April 2022, the residents solicitors wrote to the landlord, this letter stated they had not received a “meaningful response” to their letter dated 11 February 2022, as well as those dated,11 November 2021 and 8 December 2021. This letter included a schedule of the residents claim and service charge demands.
Internal emails in June 2022 show the landlord had a draft stage 2 response it was consulting on, an email dated 22 June 2022, stated, “Regrettably, the issues here have repeatedly slipped through the net, and evidently have suffered from a lack of project management”, “poor oversight by the contractor, and poor communication between the repairs service and the complainant”.
The residents solicitor contacted the landlord on 29 July 2022 and requested a response to its letter dated 11 April 2022, it listed a further 4 emails chasing a response.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 30 August 2022 and requested a stage 2 response be provided to the resident by 13 September 2022.
The residents solicitor informed the Ombudsman on 22 September 2022 that a response had not yet been received.
On 6 October 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for the second time and requested a complaint response be provided to the resident by 14 October 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 October 2022. Within its response, the landlord, acknowledged the resident had requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 27 August 2021. It advised:
1. On 5 February 2021 it received a request to investigate a possible leak from the balcony at No 6 into your property.
2. It attended on 3 March 2021 and found that the hopper on the balcony was blocked. This was cleared and the shoe to the downpipe was refitted. On this day it also removed tiles on the balcony and applied a screed of asphalt substrate before a compound finish was applied.
3. It attended again on 13 July 2021 following further leaks being reported. It found on this visit there were cracks to the iron works for the balcony outlets and a job was raised to replace these.
4. It had difficulty sourcing materials to complete the repair, it attended to waterproof the balcony but could not complete the work to the guttering and outlet. The job was completed with further works to the surrounding balconies and also broken tiles replaced to the main roof.
5. Further reports were made on 15 December 2021, it visited on 9 March 2022 and found the outlet had been blocked by the resident. It advised the resident that the outlet must remain free flowing to avoid this being problematic again. It acknowledged there was a delay in this being completed.
The landlord offered the resident £150 for the delay in responding to his complaint and £100 for the delay in its response to the repairs. It advised the resident to make claim to “the insurer” to repair any damage to the internal of the property. It gave contact details for the insurer. It concluded by advising it partially upheld the resident’s complaint in that it did not manage the complaint appropriately within timescales and upheld the complaint that there were delays in carrying out the required repairs.
The residents solicitor informed this service on 8 November 2022 that the resident was “far from satisfied” with the response as the compensation offered was “completely insufficient” and did not cover their financial losses.

Events post the landlords internal complaints process.

Following the stage 2 response, evidence was provided to show further leaks occurred and a similar pattern of the resident, or his solicitor, having to chase the landlord for updates on repairs. Correspondence has also been provided which showed an ongoing insurance claim for the redecoration of the residents property.
The landlord has confirmed to this service that no claim was issued at court relating to this case.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbouring property.

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in law, within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. Although this issue has been ongoing for some time, with evidence indicating as far back as April 2020, this investigation will only take into account the actions of the landlord from January 2021 onwards, that being six months prior to the stage 1 being made by the resident.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This in itself would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord and the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake.
In this case, the resident reported a leak affecting his property in January 2021, the landlord did not raise a works order until 5 February 2021. No evidence has been seen of the landlords records of this, there is therefore, no explanation for the delay in raising the works order. Furthermore although the works order was marked as complete in a reasonable timeframe on 16 February 2021, it is not clear what work was carried out for this job to be completed. In its stage 1 response it advised a contractor had attended on 16 February 2021 and identified 2 issues, but in its stage 2 response the landlord advised it attended on 3 March 2021 and carried out some repairs.
There was a delay of 4 months between the logging of the subsequent works order and completion. The landlord advised in its stage 1 response, this was due to the repairs needing to be signed off by an area supervisor who subsequently asked for further clarification prior to authorising. It is not clear from the evidence provided why these works required to be signed off in this manner and why such a task took such an extended period. The delay created was avoidable, which was unreasonable and cannot but have caused the resident frustration and extensive time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
The resident asked the landlord in February 2021 to be kept updated on the progress of works for access arrangements but also to be satisfied the cause of the leak had indeed been identified and rectified. As the repair was required to another property but directly affected the residents property it would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated on progress. No evidence has been seen that the landlord kept the resident informed on the progress of any of the works orders it raised, including any issues with access from the property above and its plan of action to make sure it could carry out the repairs needed. This was likely to have caused significant inconvenience to the resident and it is evident that he also needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a resolution and updates from the landlord himself and via his legal representative.
The lack of communication is especially concerning when considering that the landlord evidenced it had chased a callback from its contractor numerous times, in response to the residents communication, but no escalation or oversight of the repairs was put in place. The landlord acknowledged this in internal emails in June 2022, when it said “Regrettably, the issues here have repeatedly slipped through the net, and evidently have suffered from a lack of project management”, “poor oversight by the contractor, and poor communication between the repairs service and the complainant”. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within its complaint response however which is considered later in this report.
There was failure by the landlord to have adequate oversight of its repairs contractor and the repeated calls the resident was making resulting in unnecessary delays. Although it is recognised the ongoing leaks would have caused the resident inconvenience and mounting frustration, the landlord did attempt to identify the cause of the leak and carried out the repairs it felt were required. Over a period of 14 months and ongoing leaks reported, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a specialist leak detection contractor to source the cause of the leak throughout this time and avoid repeated call outs. A further failure has been found in its poor communication and record keeping. It is for this reason a finding of maladministration has been found for how the landlord responded to the residents reports of a leak.

The landlords record keeping.

Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on the repair records to offer clarity and as it would be expected that these are sufficiently detailed enough to show what repairs took place and when. There were obvious record keeping issues with the landlords own records in this case, this was further supported by evidence provided that showed internal emails where the landlord was trying to understand what had happened, in June 2022 whilst it was drafting its final complaint response. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can demonstrate it fulfils its repair obligations but to enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents, which it failed to do so in this case.
Overall the poor record keeping in this case is a serious failure by the landlord, although it logged numerous works orders when put on notice of a leak its records do not clearly demonstrate how it fulfilled its obligations as a landlord. It failed to reasonably communicate with the resident which resulted in the resident having to constantly chase the outstanding repairs.
The failings in record keeping caused the resident mounting frustration as he had to chase the landlord with no response on multiple occasions. Poor record keeping also impacted on the ability of this Service to fully understand the repairs outcome and follow up works required to the multiple leaks reported. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and an order to offer redress and implement improvements has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlords policy defines a complaint as: “Any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or several individuals”. Therefore the residents email of 21 June 2021 should have been taken as an expression of dissatisfaction and recorded as a complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, his email of 12 July 2021, could have also been recorded as a complaint. It is not clear when the residents complaint was logged from the landlords records, this Service is therefore unable to conclude if it responded within the timescale set out in its policy.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 9 August 2021 and the landlord issued its final response on 19 October 2022 which was significantly outside of its policy timescale by 284 working days. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately informed of any delay in advance of issuing its response, resulting in the resident having to spend time and trouble pursuing his concerns which is likely to have caused inconvenience. Furthermore this Service also had to request the landlord provide its final response on 2 occasions which is not appropriate. This Service finds that this delay combined with the lack of communication to be unreasonable, causing unnecessary inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident.
It is not clear why the landlord failed to engage with the resident and the complaints process, it is unreasonable if the landlord had ceased to engage in the complaints process because the resident had engaged solicitors.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord acknowledged, in its final response to the resident, that it had delayed in providing its final response and offered £150 compensation for this, which was in line with its guidance. The landlord apologised and in recognition of the time and trouble spent pursuing repairs offered £100 which was in line with its compensation guidance at the time. This service does not see this as reasonable redress, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation for “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy” and “significant failures to follow complaint procedure”. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident an additional amount for its excessive delay in providing its final stage complaint response, to recognise its failure to act in accordance with its policy and its operational service failures.
The landlord provided evidence that it was drafting a final response in June 2022, 3 months before it provided the response. Internal emails showed it recognised there had been failings however it did not provide detail of a thorough investigation into how these failings had occurred and how it could prevent future failings. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to review and record learning outcomes from this complaint.
In conclusion, considering all factors and predominantly the extensive delay in providing a final response, this Service deems the failings above to constitute severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of the residents complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the residents request to be compensated for financial loss is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was failure by the landlord to have adequate oversight of its repairs contractor and the repeated calls the resident was making resulting in an unnecessary extended period of time for the resident to experience ongoing leaks. The landlord failed to work cohesively between departments to resolve the problem for the resident in a timely manner and failed to keep the resident updated with the outcome of his reports of the leaks.
Although the landlord logged numerous works orders when put on notice of a leak its records do not clearly demonstrate how it fulfilled its obligations as a landlord. It failed to reasonably communicate with the resident which resulted in the resident having to constantly chase the outstanding repairs. Poor record keeping also impacted on the ability of this service and the landlord itself, to fully understand the repairs outcome and follow up works required to the multiple leaks reported, as shown in internal communications provided by the landlord.
In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the failure to engage with the resident and the complaint process caused the resident significant time and trouble pursuing the matter through his legal representative and the Ombudsman. The landlord did not evidence an adequate investigative approach or provide definitive robust learning from identified failures. Its final response was significantly delayed. Its final offer of compensation remained inadequate in the circumstance of the case particularly given its acknowledgement of its failures at this point. In total the resident’s complaint took over 14 months from start to final response.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior director to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 for the service failure identified in this report in its handling of the residents reports of leaks.
3. Pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor record keeping.
4. Pay the resident £600 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its poor management of the residents complaint.
This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £250 for compensation related to this complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a strategic management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). Its intention and a timescale to review its record keeping processes, implement procedures, staff training and quality audit measures to ensure operational improvements.
2. Its intention to ensure that complaint procedures are followed and residents are provided with an estimated timescale for a response where there are likely to be delays. This should include focus on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
3. Its intention to put in place an additional oversight arrangement that ensures it works cohesively between departments and contractors to provide a consistent service for its residents in respect of repair responsibilities and complaint management.
The landlord should confirm to this service evidence of compliance regarding these orders within the timescales given above.