Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202308895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308895

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Adaptations required, specifically lockable wheelchair storage and the levelling of the hallway floor.
2. Waste that required collection.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 26 October 2020. She moved into the property following a mutual exchange. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette. The resident lives there with her family. She requires the use of a wheelchair outside of the property, which the landlord was aware of.
On 18 October 2021, following a visit by a contractor to fix the banister, the landlord was informed that the resident’s hallway was not level. The contractor advised that the carpet needed to be removed and the floor subsequently relevelled. The landlord requested a surveyor to attend the property on 22 October 2021 to inspect the floor. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord no longer has a record of this survey; however, evidence suggests the survey advised the resident needed to lift the carpet so a clearer picture could be gained of the floor underneath.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident’s wheelchair was stolen from the front of her property in September 2021. Following this, the landlord advised the resident, on 25 October 2021, that it may be able to justify the construction of an external lockable store for the wheelchair to be kept in as it had done similar projects for other residents. The resident said that if storage could be provided it would be good as she was storing the wheelchair in the car which meant she could not leave the house without assistance.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord confirmed it had submitted the relevant paperwork for this storage to be approved and advised it would now gather quotes from contractors. An estate improvement bid for the lockable wheelchair storage was submitted for approval on 7 January 2022.
Between November 2021 and the resident’s formal complaint in August 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the wheelchair storage and the levelling of her floor. Each response from the landlord said it had no further updates. On 22 April 2022, the resident said she had been “back and forth” regarding the issues. The landlord advised the estate improvement bid was still awaiting sign off from the regional manager. It advised it would provide a “sufficient update” but gave no timescale for when to expect this.
The resident made a formal complaint on 1 August 2022. In that complaint she said she had made a complaint on 15 June 2022; however, the Ombudsman has not been provided with that initial complaint. The complaint on 1 August 2022 said:
1. There were outstanding enquiries, in relation to the wheelchair storage and levelling of the hallway floor, from November 2021 and no progress had been made.
2. That she had emailed her housing officer several times and not had a response.
3. That she had, at that point, gone 39 days without any communication from the landlord and she wished for it to respond as soon as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 August 2022. In doing so, it apologised for its poor service. On the same date internal emails show the landlord was unaware the estate improvement bid had not been accepted. It asked the housing officer to resubmit this and advised the resident should have been kept updated. The estate improvement bid was sent for approval on 4 August 2022.
The landlord gave it stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. It said:
1. An estate improvement bid, for the wheelchair storage, was submitted in November 2021 and quotations for works were gathered.
2. In February 2022, the bid was declined; however, this was never escalated or resubmitted with additional information. The landlord apologised for this.
3. The theft of the wheelchair prompted a discussion around the resident’s mobility. A referral was made to occupational health to assess the property for major adaptations, which the landlord was still waiting for.
4. A referral was made to the landlord’s aids and adaptations team to assess the property for minor adaptations; however, it understood the resident had declined this assessment at the time.
5. With regards to the unlevel hall floor, it had submitted a repair request to its assets team, but they could not see the issue fully without the carpet first being pulled up. The landlord had then chosen to await the outcome of the occupational health assessment instead of informing the team that the resident should not be expected to lift the carpet herself. It advised an appointment with the surveyor was booked for 19 August 2022.
6. It said there was a clear service failure as the resident had waited 39 days for a response while her housing officer was on leave and accepted its communication was not good enough. It said the resident should have had clarity from the landlord and offered the resident £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
7. It apologised for the lack of support from the landlord and advised it was going to use this case as learning to improve its working style and prevent service failures in the future.
8. The landlord’s assured that she had its support to maximise the experience of her home and that it would make sure any issues were followed through clearly and effectively.
The resident accepted the compensation on 16 August 2022 and advised she did not wish to take the complaint further unless the communication with the landlord ceased again and the complaint was closed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 November 2022 as she had not received any updates in relation to the wheelchair storage or the hallway floor. She also advised that the garden contractors which had attended the property some weeks earlier to clear the garden had not taken their rubbish away. She asked the landlord to arrange for that to be done. The resident also advised she was still yet to be contacted by Occupational Health for her assessment.
On 25 November 2022, the landlord requested a home visit with the resident. A summary of that visit was sent to the resident on 2 December 2022. In relation to issues pertinent to this complaint, it said:
1. It had requested its contractor to book a removal of all the outstanding waste.
2. With regards to the wheelchair storage, it said the original contractor instructed was not confident it could supply the item.
3. It had asked its surveyor to reattend the property to look at the sloping floor and it had referred the case again to its assets team to obtain further answers on a possible solution.
On the 23 January 2023, the resident raised a further complaint; however, the landlord did not respond to this. The resident resubmitted her complaint on 23 February 2023. As the complaint raised issues that had been responded to previously at stage 1, the landlord reopened that complaint and escalated it to stage 2. She asked the landlord to offer a reliable contact, eliminating the need for her to continually chase a response. She sought a timeline for the promised work, expressing her frustration at waiting for weeks and advised that it had negatively impacted her health.
In the complaint she requested from the landlord an update on the following:
1. Lockable outdoor wheelchair storage.
2. Levelling of the outdoor stairs
3. Levelling of the indoor hallway.
4. The waste collection.
5. Outdoor lighting to reduce the likelihood of theft.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 27 April 2023 and advised it was aware the resident had agreed an extension to its complaint response. It advised it would not have a response ready until the following week and apologised that its service was not good enough.
The resident replied to the landlord the following day as she had been told a response would be given by 13 April 2023. She said that she had now received a card through the door from environmental enforcement in relation to the waste that the landlord said it would collect. She said to the landlord it was “stressing her”.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident for its delay in responding and poor communication. It asked the resident to provide measurements for the wheelchair so that it could finalise the storage and advised it had assigned her a new housing officer who would take on the issues going forward.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 6 June 2023. It addressed some issues not pertinent to this investigation. In relation to the issues that are, it said:
1. The landlord had looked at suitable options for wheelchair storage but had not been successful. It said the building was subject to a preservation order which restricted changes. It, therefore, could not approve any storage to be built. It apologised for the failure to resolve the issue in a timely manner and for leading the resident to believe they could resolve issue. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
2. It had requested for the floor in her home to be levelled; however, due to the age and makeup of the building this was deemed not actionable. It further said that in reviewing the complaint, it wished to discuss with the resident the suitability of the property.
3. With regards to the waste collection, it advised arrangements had been made for it to be collected and apologised for the time taken.
4. With regards to poor communication and its complaint handling the landlord said it was clear it had not given the level of service expected and the delays experienced had impacted the resident’s ability to enjoy her home.
5. It acknowledged that it’s stage 2 response should have been sent by March 2023.
6. It offered compensation of £600, made up of the following:
  1. £250 failure to provide aids and adaptations.
  2. £150 delay to complaint response.
  3. £200 poor communication and complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 June 2023 asking for updates on the waste collection. She said the compensation offered was not reasonable given the months of failings she had undergone.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1, it will provide a response within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will provide a response within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the timescales for responding may need to be changed and those instances, it would agree a new timescale with the resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs are classed as those that are non-urgent and would be completed within 20 working days from the date they were first reported. It confirms the landlord has repair responsibilities for internal floors. In its repairs policy, it classed vulnerable residents as those where there would be a significant impact on their physical or mental health that would lead them to being unable to remain in the property if the repair was not undertaken.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that there are a range of minor and major adaptations that are available for disabled residents to help them maintain their independence and enjoy their home life to the full. Minor adaptations are those that can be carried out by specialist contractors and do not require further input from the landlord and those are self-funded through the landlord. It states minor adaptations can be referred to the landlord following recommendations by an Occupational Therapist.

Adaptations

When the resident first raised with the landlord that her wheelchair had been stolen, in September 2021, the landlord advised the resident it would speak to her local police officer to discuss if there was anything that could be done to prevent the wheelchair being stolen again in the future. This was a reasonable response and would have reassured the resident that the landlord was committed to helping prevent the issue from reoccurring.
Around the same time, the resident had repairs undertaken to her banister and it was following this that the contractor informed the landlord that her hallway floor was not level. It appropriately arranged for a surveyor to attend to assess the situation. This again showed a commitment from the landlord to resolve the issue and would have reassured the resident that a solution would be found.
Following the surveyors visit, in October 2021, the resident was asked to pull up a section of her carpet and photograph the floor. Given the resident’s known mobility issues, it was not appropriate of the landlord to ask this. Given that the landlord holds the repair responsibility, it would have been reasonable for it to have lifted the carpet itself.
The landlord advised that it had completed paperwork for the wheelchair storage and would obtain quotes. The evidence shows the landlord received a quote from a contractor on 11 November 2021; however, the estate improvement bid was not submitted until 7 January 2022, almost 2 months after the quote was received. This was an unreasonable length of time to wait to submit the bid, especially when the resident had informed the landlord, she was unable to leave the house unaided due to storing the wheelchair in the car. If the delay was unavoidable, the landlord should have communicated that to the resident to manage her expectations and considered if any temporary solutions could be put in place.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord accepted that the lack of wheelchair storage was affecting the resident’s daily life. It apologised and advised it would chase for an update on the wheelchair storage and the floor. The landlord advised a further 5 times between January and June 2022 that it would obtain an update. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord pursued a response to its improvement bid or from its surveyor regarding the floor during that time. This is unsatisfactory especially given the landlord’s awareness that both issues were affecting her daily life. Its lack of action highlighted the landlord’s disregard to her situation.
Further to this, it was inappropriate of the landlord to inform the resident it would chase an update when the evidence suggests it was not doing so. Landlords need to be open and ensure where actions are outstanding, it has effective systems in place to guarantee these are followed up in a timely manner and ensure that sufficient updates are given to residents. Not doing so in this case led to the resident expending time chasing a response which would have been frustrating and ultimately led to the resident raising a complaint around August 2022.
It was not until the resident submitted a complaint and a senior member of staff became involved that any urgency to resolving the issue was evidenced. At that point a new estate improvement bid was submitted with further information. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the urgency of the situation, it was not appropriate that it came 9 months after it had first promised to seek a resolution for her unlevelled floor and wheelchair storage. This was 9 months when the resident had to rely on family members to help her leave her house and when she felt unsafe in the hallway due to the floor sloping towards the stairs.
In its stage 1 response, on 15 August 2022, the landlord took responsibility for not escalating or resubmitting the estate improvement bid. It acknowledged that it had delayed in resolving the issue with the hallway floor and confirmed it had arranged a further surveyor’s appointment for 19 August 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to accept its fault at this point, and it advised it would use the failings identified at this stage as learning to improve it’s practices. This was a reasonable response and would have reassured the resident that it was now committed to helping her and would have improved the landlord and resident relationship.
However, the resident chased for further updates on 5 October and 9 November 2022 to which she did not receive a response. The Ombudsman understands there may be delays in bids being approved; However, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays or any issues to manage her expectations. Not doing so showed that it had not taken onboard the learning from her initial complaint. It highlighted the landlord’s disregard for the resident’s situation, she had now been living a year with the reasonable expectation that the issues would be resolved by the landlord.
The landlord conducted a home visit in December 2022 to discuss outstanding issues. However, evidence suggests the landlord approached the first contractor only 5 days before the visit, a year after discussing storage and 4 months after the second estate improvement bid was submitted. While the Ombudsman understands that when a contractor refuses a job it is out of the landlord’s hands, no urgency was shown when seeking a remedy. It took an unsatisfactory length of time to seek a contractor that would undertake the build. This delay would have frustrated the resident and caused further distress and inconvenience.
With regards to the hallway floor, it advised that it would ask its contractor to attend the property to conduct a further inspection, including lifting the carpet; however, evidence suggests that didn’t take place until March 2023. Again, this highlights a lack of urgency from the landlord. Landlords need to ensure any systems they have in place track outstanding tasks effectively so that residents aren’t left waiting unnecessarily long lengths of time for resolutions.
The resident chased the landlord for further updates in January and February 2023 but again did not receive a response from the landlord. This led to the resident raising a further complaint. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord communicated with the resident until April 2023, 17 months after the landlord had raised the expectation that the storage would be provided. The lack of communication in this case was completely unsatisfactory.
In its reply on 27 April 2023, the landlord accepted its service was not good enough and apologised. While it is appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, it had apologised for the same issues in January 2021 and in its stage 1 response where it assured the resident it had learned from its mistakes. The evidence highlights that the landlord had not put that learning into practise. This would have frustrated the resident and is not in line with dispute resolution principles.
In its stage 2 response, on 6 June 2023, the landlord advised that her building was subject to a preservation order and therefore the building of wheelchair storage was, in fact, not even possible. This was 22 months after the landlord had raised the resident expectations that it would be able to provide the storage. Further to this, it failed to provide an explanation as to why it had taken so long to discover that the storage was not possible. The extended delays in this case were unsatisfactory. For the resident to have waited so long to then be told it would not be possible would have been frustrating especially given that during that time she had required help to leave her home impacting on her independence.
In the same response, it advised the resident that the works required to level her hallway floor were not actionable due to the make-up of the building. This issue was first raised in October 2021 and numerous surveyors had attended and advised the landlord major works may be required. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord 22 months to conclude the works could not be undertaken. During that time, the resident, who had significant mobility issues was left living with a sloping floor. The landlord showed a lack of regard to the impact on the resident in her own home and took an inappropriate length of time to come to the conclusion that it did.
That conclusion led the landlord expressing to the resident that it wished to discuss with her the suitability of her home. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the resident’s home may not be suitable; However, it was unsatisfactory that it took the length of time that it did to initiate these discussions with the resident who was left for nearly 2 years in a home where she had to be reliant on family members and her independence was compromised.
In its stage 1 response the landlord advised it was still awaiting an Occupational Health assessment. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence as to when this was first requested. However, it was appropriate of the landlord to request this so it could fully understand how best to support the resident with any aids and adaptations.
However, the resident chased this again on 9 November 2022 as she had not heard anything. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that a referral to Occupational Health was ever made or if it was made that it was followed up and chased. Given that the landlord knew the sloping floor was affecting the resident’s daily life, it would have been appropriate to have ensured this assessment took place at the earliest opportunity.
Overall, despite the landlord’s repeated apologies for the delay experienced by the resident, there is little evidence to indicate that the landlord treated the matter with the necessary urgency. The prolonged expectation, spanning nearly 2 years, that the landlord would address her wheelchair storage and sloping floor issues, only for them to subsequently declare their inability to do so, was highly inappropriate. This disregard for the resident’s situation, which necessitated reliance on family assistance to leave her property, reflects poorly on the landlord. While the landlord eventually acknowledged its poor communication and failure to provide adequate aids and adaptations, this acceptance took too long.
Taking into consideration all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations in her property.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused in this case. Given the duration of the time that passed while the landlord raised the expectations of the resident and the impact of having to be reliant on family members to leave her home had on the resident, this amount is not appropriate. Therefore, a compensation order has been made for £800. This is made up of the following:
1. £200 for the lack of communication.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £300 for the time taken in pursuing a response.

Waste collection.

The resident first reported that waste had been left in the property following completed works on 9 November 2022. The landlord appropriately agreed that it would arrange for this removal. However, on 23 January and 21 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide an update as the waste had not been collected. The landlord should ensure the systems it has in place to monitor and track contractor requests are robust and efficient. It needs to ensure that where actions are not followed up, these are appropriately flagged and monitored. Not doing so in this case caused the resident to expend time chasing the landlord for a response.
The waste had still not been collected in April 2023 when the resident received a notification from environmental enforcement in relation to the waste; 5 months after the landlord had confirmed it had raised a request for its removal. Although no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord did raise a request for the removal in November 2022, it was not appropriate that 5 months later the resident had to undergo the stress of having to deal with the environmental enforcement team for an issue that she had herself tried to resolve. Not resolving the issue in a timely manner caused distress to the resident and would have done little to maintain the landlord and resident relationship.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord advised it would get the rubbish removed as soon as possible. However, by 31 May 2023, the resident was forced to chase the landlord again for an update. Again, this is unreasonable. The resident had to spend further time chasing a response. There has been no evidence provided to show that the landlord had acted upon the resident’s information that the waste had not been collected. The resident’s communication was another opportunity for the landlord to check its systems and ensure a waste collection had been raised and to raise one if it had not. Not doing so caused another unnecessary delay and caused stress to the resident who now had the environmental enforcement team chasing her to deal with the collection of the contactors rubbish. This was an unreasonable position to put the resident in, given her contact with the landlord about the rubbish removal and the time that had passed without any action.
In its stage 2 response the landlord advised it had made arrangements for the collection. However, it did not give the resident a date for the collection or advise if it had spoken to the environmental enforcement team to inform them that the issue was being dealt with. This caused the resident to chase the landlord for this information on 9 June 2023. The landlord advised it would give her an answer by 15 June 2023; However, the resident chased the landlord again on 29 June 2023. The landlord’s lack of regard to the situation was not acceptable. It had left the resident living with waste in her garden for 7 months. The landlord should ensure where it has told the resident it has raised a request for a collection, the collection goes ahead as planned. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively monitored the waste removal following the first time the resident raised her concerns. Not doing so caused the resident further time, trouble and distress chasing a resolution.
Overall, the landlord has failed to evidence that it ever raised a request for the waste to be collected. Instead, it spent time reassuring the resident that it had raised the request and showed no empathy with the resident who spent at least 7 months living with the waste. While it apologised in its stage 2 response for the time taken to raise a collection, it failed to acknowledge the time taken by the resident in pursing the request and further failed to ensure that the waste was then subsequently collected.
The landlord’s lack of action to resolve the issue and its empty promises to ensure it would resolve the issue have led to a finding of maladministration in this case.
Taking into account all the above, an order for compensation of £300 has been made. This is made up of the following:
1. £150 for the delay in resolving the issue.
2. £150 for the time taken in pursuing a resolution.

Complaints Handling

The resident made an initial complaint on 15 June 2022 in which she said, “this was raised on 12 November 2021” and asked the landlord for an update. The landlord responded on 23 June 2022 asking for the resident to provide additional information so it could respond accordingly. However, no evidence has been provided to show if the resident responded prior to her fuller complaint on 1 August 2022. While landlords should acknowledge and log complaints at the first opportunity, the Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s initial complaint on 15 June 2022 contained little information for the landlord to log or respond to. Further to this, the landlord appropriately responded to gain further information.
Following the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2022, the landlord responded on 15 August 2022; within 10 working days. This was in line with its policy. Following this response, the resident advised she was happy to accept the compensation offered and for the complaint be closed, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged, and the complaint was marked as resolved.
Due to the outstanding issues the resident raised a further complaint on 23 January 2023. However, this was not acknowledged by the landlord, and she submitted the complaint again on 21 February 2023. While the complaint was appropriately acknowledged following the residents second email on 21 February 2023, the landlord should have acknowledged the initial complaint made in January. Not doing so caused an unnecessary delay and caused the resident to expend time chasing a response.
As the issue raised pertained to the issues raised in her previous complaint, the landlord decided to reopen her previous complaint and escalate this to stage 2. Given that 6 months had passed since her original complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this with the resident to ascertain if she wished for a new stage 1 to be raised, or if she was happy with it being escalated to stage 2. Not doing so denied her the opportunity of the issues being reinvestigated as part of a 2 stage complaints process. However, the landlord appropriately looked back at the full timeline in its stage 2 response.
The landlord then contacted the resident on 3 April 2023 asking for an extension until 13 April 2023. However, it is not appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident after the response was due, this was not line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out the expectations of landlords with regards to complaint responses.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 27 April 2023, 10 working days after the agreed extension and advised it would not be able to provide a response until the following week. It appropriately apologised and advised the resident it was aware its service was not good enough. However, especially given the extensive delays already it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide an explanation for the delay. The Code sets out that landlords should put residents at the heart of their complaints handling and the landlord has failed to evidence this within its handling of this case.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 9 June 2023 and while it appropriately apologised for the delay in its complaint handling, it failed to provide an explanation or give an expectation as to when she could expect a response. Given that over a month had passed since the landlords last communication, this was unsatisfactory and would have frustrated the resident who was awaiting a resolution and explanation in relation to the issues she had raised.
The landlord was required to give it stage 2 response by 23 March 2023, it did not give this until 6 June 2023; 49 working days after the response was due. This is unacceptable and while the landlord acknowledged the response should have been given in March 2023, it failed to apologise for the delays in its complaint handling.
Overall, the complaint handling in this case fell well below the standards expected by the Ombudsman and those set out in the Code. The resident took time and effort to chase a response, the landlord failed to give reasonable explanations for the delays and failed to acknowledge the impact the delays had on the resident.
Taking into account all the evidence there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In this case the landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 for its poor communication and complaints handling. Given the extensive delays in this case, that amount does not accurately reflect the failings identified. Therefore, compensation has been ordered for £300, made up of the following:
1. £100 for its failure to acknowledge the second complaint in a timely manner.
2. £100 for the delays in providing a response a stage 2.
3. £100 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs, record-keeping, and complaint handling. As a result of these, a wider order was issued to the landlord on 8 December 2023, as part of case 202126742, under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified. Some of the issues identified in this case have similarities to those in the previous cases and therefore learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for adaptations in the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for waste to be collected.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Pay compensation of £1400. This total replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £600 and must be paid less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer. This is made up of the following:
  1. £800 for the failures in its handling of the request for adaptations.
  2. £300 for the failures in its handling of the request for waste to be collected.
  3. £300 for its complaint handling
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this case. This must be written by a senior member of staff.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.