Peabody Trust (202014635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014635

Peabody Trust

28 February 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about leaks and blockages at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident, who is elderly and vulnerable, stayed with her daughter for an extensive period of the complaint, and is represented by her daughter in regard to the complaint.
The landlord responds to repairs depending on the urgency, and aims to attend to emergency and out of hours works within four hours.
The landlord deals initially with complaints as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction,’ and if this does not resolve matters, it operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy advises it does not investigate complaints or pay compensation where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance. The policy advises that the landlord pays up to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience; up to £100 for complaint handling; and 25% of weekly rent for an unusable bathroom, when 48 hours have elapsed since this was reported.

Summary of events

The landlord states it first received reports from the resident about a bathroom leak and blockage on 1 September 2020; while the resident’s daughter’s account advises that issues were first reported prior to this, on 28 or 30 August 2020, when operatives attended on two different days without resolving the issue. The landlord advises that references the resident’s daughter supplied toward these are dissimilar to any references for the property and the block.
On 1 September 2020, both the daughter and landlord’s accounts confirm that the daughter called the landlord and a works order was raised for “Tnt reported only toilet in property is blocked and bathroom is flooded due to a previous job by Plumber, Tnt not able to use toilet.” The landlord’s records advise its contractor attended and ensured the toilet was unblocked and flushed; ensured dirt in the bath that had come up from the trap ran away; and ensured there were no traces of leaks around the toilet or bath. The landlord’s records note that the operative suggested a check of an above flat and jetting if blockages persisted. The daughter’s account advises that the operative left the property to go to a flat upstairs, leaving the resident’s door open, and did not return.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord raised an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’, after the daughter complained and advised that after the resident had reported a blocked toilet, a contractor had attended without doing anything, and another had flooded the bathroom and carpet and left the resident to clear up the mess. The daughter advised that the resident was left without use of the bath or toilet for a weekend and had used plastic bags to go to the toilet. The landlord had sent out another contractor on 1 September 2020 who went to check an upstairs flat and never returned, leaving the resident’s door open until a concerned neighbour closed the door two hours later. The daughter advised that four days had now passed, the bathroom and carpets were flooded, and the toilet and bath were unusable. They advised that the resident was elderly and had health issues, including a form of cancer, and asked the landlord to help resolve the situation.
The daughter and landlord’s accounts confirm that contractors attended later the same day for three hours, and the operative mopped up a leak and checked for leaks on waste pipes and the toilet cistern. It was noted that the resident was unhappy with different operatives attending, and that the contractor would send the same operative for further works the next day for continuity.
On 3 September 2020, the daughter and landlord’s accounts confirm that contractors attended, and a small leak on the flush pipe was repaired by replacing a flush cone, and outside drains were investigated, jetted and descaled due to there being other partial blockages.
On 7 September 2020, the daughter confirmed the issues had been resolved but stated concern about the delay; being unable to get through to departments they were advised to contact; an operative leaving the door open and not returning; and the issue potentially happening again. The landlord responded on 16 September 2020, stating that it was difficult to say what the cause was as this had been jetted away, but that it may have been something as simple as a bundle of wet wipes. It advised that works had been recommended to descale an outside drain which were believed to be completed. The daughter responded the same day and said it would be helpful to understand the delays and why the door was left open. On 29 September 2020, the landlord emailed the daughter. It apologised for the delay in updating and it said:
1. The issue was reported and attended on 1 September 2020 and no issue was found with toilet flooding.
2. The daughter called on 2 September 2020 and alleged non-attendance the previous day, and a contractor attended. It asked the daughter to check with the resident about contractor attendance, and advised it would let the resident know when it received updates to its own enquiries about these.
3. The contractors ensured the same operative was sent with a colleague on 3 September 2020 to jet and clear the drains. The landlord explained that blockages at different locations in the drainage system could affect what flats were effected.
The landlord made internal enquiries the same day about the alleged non-attendance, then on 4 October 2020 the daughter detailed calls and attendances on 30 and 31 August 2020 and supplied reference numbers and names of staff. They advised that they recognised the impact of the pandemic but raised concern that the landlord had failed to prioritise an elderly, vulnerable resident.
On 31 December 2020, the landlord received reports of a leak coming from the property of the resident, who was away staying with her daughter, after which emergency services forced entry and a plumber and locksmith attended and completed repairs. This led the daughter to complain about a lack of response to the complaint and to raise concern that the landlord had not repaired the issue in September 2020. The daughter requested for the leak to be thoroughly investigated and necessary leak and bathroom works carried out. They requested details on how to make a claim to the landlord’s insurance and advised that carpet replacement and a property deep clean were required.
On 3 January 2021, the daughter emailed the landlord and reported they had returned to the flat; found the front door and a window open; and found sewage in the bathroom that they then spent four hours cleaning. They alleged a contractor had breached the resident’s privacy by sharing photos of the bathroom with a neighbour. The landlord’s records advise that it repaired the bathroom window on 4 January 2021; escalated the complaint to stage one; arranged for a deep clean of the bathroom and part of the hallway on 9 January 2021; and scheduled a surveyor inspection for 14 January 2021.
On 11 January 2021, the daughter advised that the resident was staying with them again, and detailed works they said needed to be done before she returned to the flat. The front door needed easing; the bathroom window needed further repair; a new bathroom was needed; a fan/vent did “not meet regulations;” the bathroom ceiling and wall had been affected by water ingress; new carpet was required in the bathroom and hallway; and there needed to be checks to ensure the leak and blocked drain issue was addressed. The daughter restated concerns about the property door being left open and a neighbour possessing pictures of the bathroom, which had been shared with other residents. The landlord responded that the inspection on 14 January 2021 would identify required repairs, that repairs would be monitored, and that on completion a stage one complaint response would be provided.
The information provided advises that at the surveyor’s inspection, the daughter reported that the resident struggled to use the bath and wanted a wet room fitted. The daughter subsequently reported that they were arranging an Occupational Therapist assessment, and were happy for the works to be paused until the report was received, as they assumed it was “easier to manage all the works together than individually.” The landlord contacted the daughter in January and February 2021 to query if the report had been received so it could proceed with repairs, and the daughter responded that they were waiting for contact from the local authority about the assessment.
On 16 and 18 February 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to reports of the resident’s flat causing leaks to a property below. It was noted that the main stack was blocked, which caused sewage from upstairs to overflow in the resident’s flat then leak into a flat below. It was noted that “a rubble sack worth” of wet wipes was removed and it was then tested that everything was flowing. It was noted that the bathroom needed an environmental clean; wooden flooring needed changing as this had become contaminated; and jetting and a CCTV drainage survey were required.
On 18 and 19 February 2021, the daughter emailed about the recent sewage leaks. They asked the landlord to be proactive about addressing causes of the problem, such as use of a drainage camera and ask residents not to flush items such as wipes. They provided contact details for a relative who could provide access to the flat, although they suggested that it install a key safe for easier access. They advised that the landlord had failed to resolve the issues since they were reported in August 2020, and failed in its duty of care to support a vulnerable and elderly resident to live in safe sanitary conditions. They advised that the resident had not been able to use the property since December 2020, had continued to live with her daughter, and was becoming distressed at repeated calls to and from the landlord about leaks. They asked the landlord to carry out repairs, sanitise the bathroom and hallway, replace carpet and award compensation, including for not being able to use the property since December 2020.
Between 20 and 25 February 2021, the landlord’s records advise that areas in the resident’s flat were sanitised; a CCTV drain investigation found a collapsed line which needed to be dug out and replaced; and drainage work was completed. Around this time, the landlord noted that an Occupational Therapist assessment was scheduled, and informed the daughter that it would carry out repairs and adaptations after the report was received, and the information provided advises that repairs and improvements were completed in April 2021.
On 19 May 2021, there was a further leak and blockages that affected the property below the resident. Information provided advises the landlord considered this to be unrelated to previous works, and shows the blockages related to drains being blocked with sanitary towels, wet wipes and a plastic bag, following which it took steps on 21 May 2021 to arrange for a letter to be sent to request that residents be careful what they put down the toilet. In June 2021, jetting and a CCTV inspection were carried out, which left the drains free flowing and in good working order.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response. This said:
1. Repairs were raised and attended in September and December 2020 and February 2021. After the repairs, the daughter asked for the bath to be changed to a wet room, which required an Occupational Therapist assessment, and the pandemic contributed to delays in getting the report to progress the repairs and adaptations. On contractor’s advice, a letter had been sent to ask residents not to put certain items in the toilet, which was hoped would minimise the risk of blockages happening.
2. It had completed repairs and adaptations and the final repair, the bathroom window, was completed in June 2021 because this had to be ordered.
3. It was not its aim to drag out repairs and it apologised for delays, distress and inconvenience, and awarded £1,782.50. This comprised £400 for time and trouble and a 25% reduction in rent for ten months. It said it would not compensate for damage to personal belongings such as the carpet as residents were advised to make a claim through their insurer.
The same day, the daughter asked to escalate the complaint and detailed their dissatisfaction on 17 July 2021. In summary, they said:
1. The landlord had failed to safeguard and support her elderly, vulnerable mother; failed in its obligation to maintain the building; and ignored requests to carry out repairs or deep clean until the issue was taken to the media and this Service. They moved the resident to live with them for over ten months because she could not remain in the property with a toxic smell and lack of a toilet; and the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment, decanted the resident and carried out repairs as soon as possible.
2. The issue had involved time and trouble contacting the landlord and providing access to contractors, and requests to fit a key safe and suggestions of what to do had been ignored.
3. The contractor had left the resident in the flat with the front door open without any notice; the daughter and the resident returned to the flat to find the front door open; and the contractor had shared bathroom photos with a neighbour who had then shared them with other residents, which had all caused distress.
4. The daughter requested replacement of carpets they had to rip up, which the resident would still have if the landlord had acted sooner, and “the right amount of compensation” for distress and inconvenience.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord issued its final response after speaking to the daughter. This said:
1. The purpose was to review what it said at stage one, the reasons for dissatisfaction with the response, and whether the compensation was fair and in line with policy. Its assessment of compensation considered if there were historic poor repairs; if it did everything possible when it was notified; how this affected the enjoyment of the home; and the resident’s individual circumstances.
2. It noted the daughter said there were no toilet facilities from 27 August to 2 September 2020 and temporary accommodation should have been offered. It advised that, according to its records, the first report was received on 1 September 2020 and its review of repairs and attendances did not show the toilet was unusable.
3. On 31 December 2020, a stack pipe got blocked and pictures were emailed on 3 January 2021 that showed the bathroom to be in an unusable state, and this was cleaned on 9 January 2021. On 19 February 2021, a blockage occurred due to a collapsed drain cover and an extensive build-up of wet wipes, which was cleared.
4. It was agreed to suspend any work until the local authority completed an occupational health assessment so repairs and improvements could be done at the same time. This was not received until 13 April 2021, and a window replacement took longer as this had to be manufactured.
5. It apologised that sewage went into the property; recognised this will have been unpleasant and stressful; and advised that it was difficult to know whether more work at each repair could have avoided this.
6. It acknowledged the daughter was unhappy an operative left and did not return, and advised that as it was viewing a repair from eleven months ago it was “difficult to recall exactly what happened.” It also acknowledged issues the daughter had raised about value for money and contractors, and identified complaint handling issues, and said these had been discussed internally.
7. Its policy was that damaged personal items should be claimed through home or buildings insurance, for which it provided details, and it was concerned about the previous compensation offered, mainly in relation to the ten month rent reduction. The compensation should have been internally discussed with a head of service and would have been different if it had been. The bathroom was usable between September and December 2020; and between January and April 2021 the main delay was that it was waiting for an occupational health assessment. It amended its award to £915.65, which comprised £400 for time and trouble; a three month reduction of rent; and £100 for a delay in its stage one response and not following process. It apologised for what had happened and acknowledged the sensitivity of its decision to reduce the compensation.
The resident contacted this Service the same day. They restated earlier dissatisfaction and added that:
1. The landlord had caused distress to the resident, who had had to endure sewage in the bathroom and hallway caused by broken drains it was responsible to maintain.
2. They were unhappy at being told the resident could have used the toilet, since the broken drain was not fixed for many months and the toilet backed up.
3. The landlord collected rent for ten months while the resident had no use of the property due to its negligence.
4. The landlord was aware the resident was staying with her daughter and could have shown consideration by offering alternative accommodation.
5. They wanted the landlord to replace soiled carpets in the hallway, which they had provided a quote for.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
This means that while the resident complains about the landlord’s handling of ongoing issues that post-date the complaints procedure, the Ombudsman is unable to consider all the complaints the resident has about her landlord. In this case, investigation is limited to the resident’s formal complaint in September 2020, up until the landlord’s final responses in May 2021 and August 2021. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for possessions damage, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Assessment and findings

In this case the Ombudsman notes that in its responses the landlord acknowledged issues with its management of the case. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, which it mainly meets through a reactive repairs service. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate reports of leaks and blockages and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified. When assessing a complaint, this Service’s main consideration is whether the landlord has responded appropriately to such repairs reports, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The resident and the landlord clearly differ about when issues were first reported in August and September 2020. The landlord has taken steps to assess the resident’s version of events, however the information available appears to support the landlord’s version of events that it first received reports from the resident on 1 September 2020. Following this, it attended and ensured the toilet was unblocked and flushed; ensured dirt in the bath ran away; and ensured there were no traces of leaks around the toilet or bath. On further reports over the following two days, it mopped up and checked for leaks, repaired a leak on a flush pipe, and investigated, jetted and descaled outside drains. On receipt of further reports in December 2020, February 2021 and May 2021, the landlord again attended and cleaned the resident’s property; jetted and descaled pipes; carried out a CCTV survey; and carried out works identified to remedy a collapsed line.
In its initial informal complaint response in September 2020, the landlord confirmed the issues reported in September 2020 were resolved, initially identified that the works were completed in a timely manner, and took steps to try to investigate the resident’s allegations that resolution of issues was not timely and that a contractor had left her in the property with the front door open and not returned. This demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the substantive issue and initially investigate the resident’s concerns; however it did not meet a commitment to update the resident on the outcome of its further investigations, which did not manage the resident’s expectations and was not reasonable.
In its formal complaint responses, the landlord detailed that it had attended to and completed repairs and had written to ask residents not to put certain items in the toilet. It advised that the bathroom was usable in September 2020; was in an unusable state and cleaned in January 2021; then been affected by waiting for an Occupational Therapist assessment between January and April 2021. It said it was difficult to investigate repairs from eleven months prior, but it acknowledged issues with contractors and complaint handling and said these had been discussed internally. It referred the resident to insurance for damaged possessions and provided details. It acknowledged the impact of the sewage issue on the resident, advised that it was not its aim to drag out repairs, and apologised for the delays, distress and inconvenience. It initially awarded £1,782.50 which included a ten month reduction in rent; then reduced this to £915.65, which included a three month reduction in rent, as the bathroom had not been unusable for ten months and the previous award should have been cleared via a head of service.
This investigation understands a temporary lack of toilet and bath will have been distressing for the resident; her desire for action to have been taken to avoid issues occurring; and her daughter’s concerns about her not being checked on or offered alternative accommodation if left for long periods without basic facilities. The landlord operates a reactive service, so is not generally expected to take action unless there is evidence for this or considered necessary by its staff, and the evidence available shows that the landlord’s response to reports and recommended follow on works was timely and based on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors, on whose opinion it is entitled to rely. The landlord does not appear to have considered the property to be uninhabitable at any point which would have prompted it to proactively offer alternative accommodation, and this does not appear to have been requested by the resident or her daughter during affected periods, in order for the landlord to consider and respond.
This investigation understands how unpleasant the sewage and recurrence of the issue must have been, and the landlord provided appropriate support with this to carry out cleans. The landlord should aim to be proactive in respect of elderly and vulnerable residents, however it is understandable that the resident not living in the property may have impacted the timeframe in which the property was cleaned, and on occasions required the property was cleaned within a week, which appears a reasonable timeframe. While the resident was not staying in the property at the time, and so was not so affected by the sewage as if she had been, this investigation nevertheless understands that the recurrence of the issues and receiving calls about these will have been distressing and inconvenient to her, and to relatives who provided access for repairs.
This investigation also understands that the resident feels the landlord has been negligent and is therefore liable for distress and physical damage to carpets, which this Service understands will have been distressing to experience. However, as noted at paragraph 27 of this report, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for injury or possessions damage, and the landlord’s advice to submit a claim via an insurance procedure is in line with its policies, and this Service’s approach.
Although much of the landlord’s response to the repairs appears in line with its obligations, its handling of matters was unsatisfactory at points.
While the landlord’s informal and final response were provided in a timely manner, the landlord’s stage one response was provided six months after the complaint was escalated to stage one, which is not reasonable. The investigation of issues such as a front door being left open during a visit; the resident returning to her flat to find the front door open; and photos of the bathroom being shared by the contractor were also limited. It is concerning that the resident’s account suggests the property was reportedly left unsecured from 31 December 2020, when accessed by emergency services, to around 3 January 2021, when she returned to the property temporarily. The landlord should have ensured an effective contemporaneous investigation of these concerns were carried out and outcomes set out to the resident in a timely manner.
This investigation also notes that in September and December 2020, the cause of blockages and leaks was unclear, but in February 2021, the cause of blockages were described to relate to “a rubble sack worth” of wet wipes. It is concerning therefore that it took further issues in May 2021, three months, for steps to be taken to write to residents about what was being put down the toilet. The February 2021 report, and the resident’s request around that time for neighbours to be written to, appears a missed opportunity to consider such action earlier, particularly considering that by this time blockages had now occurred in September 2020, December 2020 and February 2021. This investigation cannot definitively say that writing to residents earlier would have avoided later issues, however doing so would raise awareness about the issue and demonstrate appropriate proactive action was being taken about the issue. A recommendation is therefore made in relation to this.
The resident’s decision to live at her daughter’s from a surveyor inspection in February 2021, until both repairs and adaptation works were completed in April 2021, appears to have been her own choice and without any agreement with the landlord. There is no evidence that it did not respond in a timely manner, in line with policies, or that the bathroom and property was considered to be unusable. However, while the landlord appropriately maintained contact with the resident, which provided opportunity for the repairs to be requested earlier, it could have explicitly clarified that it could complete repairs unrelated to the wet room earlier.
In light of issues with the landlord’s handling of the case, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged issues, apologised, advised it was learning lessons from it and awarded compensation to recognise the impact on the resident.
This investigation notes that the landlord did not follow internal procedure in its first compensation award and significantly reduced its award in its final response. It is unusual for a compensation offer to be reduced significantly and a resident should not be fairly penalised for escalating a complaint. The landlord should have originally followed its compensation procedure, and honouring commitments is important for a landlord to maintain the landlord and resident relationship. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has a wider duty to all its residents to manage its limited financial resources, and it is entitled to reconsider its decision-making and to change its mind, if this is reasonable and not out of line with policies. In this case the landlord acknowledged the impact of its decision; apologised for what had happened; provided clear explanation to the resident about its decision; and the evidence suggests this was taken into account in the final award in order to be customer focused.
The landlord’s final compensation award comprises £400 for time and trouble; a three month reduction of rent; and £100 for a delay in its stage one response and not following process. The £500 for time and trouble and delays reflect the maximum awards that the landlord makes under its compensation policies for time, trouble and inconvenience as well as complaint handling. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord acknowledged how it had handled matters, including the original compensation award, and sought to remedy this with the highest applicable compensation under its policy. This appears reasonable given issues such as the length of time it took to respond to the complaint and the ineffective investigation and response to certain aspects.
The landlord’s final response compensated for an unusable bathroom from February to April 2021, a reduction from the original award for an unusable bathroom from around August 2020 to April 2021. While this Service understands the £800 reduction will have been upsetting, this does not appear unreasonable since the landlord did not consider the bathroom to be unusable between September and December 2020. Further, the evidence suggests that once repairs for each report were completed and the bathroom and hallway cleaned in relatively timely ways, the bathroom may have been usable despite pending internal repairs between January and April 2021, as these do not appear major.
However, as noted above, although the delay in the repairs appear to have been due to a preference to combine the repairs with a wet room installation, the landlord could have demonstrated it did more to avoid repairs delays, and it was reasonable that it awarded unusable bathroom compensation for that period. The additional £415.65 appears to be in accordance with the landlord’s policy that for delayed repair to an unusable bathroom, it compensates 25% of rent from 48 hours after an incident is reported. This shows that the landlord sought to recognise the impact on the resident and fairly resolve matters by providing additional compensation in line with its policy.
In its Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £500 falls in the second highest range, where there has been service failure or maladministration and issues such as failure to address repairs for significant periods or significant failures to follow complaints procedure; while the total financial remedy provided of £915.65 falls in the highest range, where there has been maladministration or severe maladministration and significant impact on the resident.
Accordingly, the financial remedy provided by the landlord appears in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering all of the circumstances of the case the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint.
This investigation notes that this does not mean the Ombudsman thinks that the issues or the impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about leaks and blockages at the property.

Reasons

While this Service understands that the resident’s experience and recurrence of similar issues must have been incredibly upsetting, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has provided reasonable financial remedy for issues identified with complaints handling and repairs; and it has demonstrated that it has sought to put things right and learn from the case.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer the compensation of £915.65 if this has not already been paid.
The landlord to review its complaints handling, to particularly ensure that:
1. effective contemporaneous investigations of complaints are carried out.
2. appropriate responses are provided in a timely manner.
3. any staff responding to complaints understand its compensation policy, authorisation levels and any other internal checks required.
The landlord to review the reports of excessive wet wipes being the cause of blockages in February 2021, and consider whether processes are effective enough to trigger timely appropriate action, in light of the finding at paragraph 38.