Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202325127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325127

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

29 August 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:
1. The resident’s reports of various repairs including:
  1. Damp and mould; a cracked wall and a leak from the chimney stack.
  2. Insulation for the attic.
  3. Replacement baths.
  4. Asbestos.
2. A decant (a temporary move).
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in early 2017. The property is a mid-terrace 5-bedroom house. The landlord is aware that, at the time of the events complained about, the household was made up of the resident, his wife, 3 older children (2 adult daughters and an adult son), and 2 younger sons now aged 18 and 13. It noted that all 3 sons have dyspraxia with violent tendencies; that the father has chronic heart disease, chronic artery disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, inflamed pancreatis, sleep apnoea, sciatica, and spurs in his feet that render him unable to walk some days; and that the mother has diabetes and high blood pressure. The resident also told us that his sons have autism, ADHD and sensory issues. He added that they have several pets including a dog and cats, 2 of which are support animals for the younger sons.
In February 2018 a damp survey was carried out which identified rising damp in the property including the kitchen. It is not clear what, if any, work was undertaken to remedy that at the time. However, in November 2018 the landlord noted that repairs to the property including the damp proof course in the kitchen “had not worked”. It also noted that both baths in the property were unusable due to their size.
In January 2019 the resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repairs. Later that year the landlord noted that, while the bathroom replacements were not due until 2031, “the bathroom is awful, the bath is too small for them to fit in”.
Almost 2 years later, in March 2021, a repair to a wall did not take place as planned as the contractor required access by way of a neighbouring property and that neighbour was away. The landlord agreed that the contractor should suspend the job. In May 2021 the contractor told the landlord that they had waited several weeks for the resident to provide a date when they could gain access via the neighbour’s flat but had not heard from them and had therefore “abandoned the job”. The landlord noted it would wait for the resident to get in touch.
In October 2021 another damp survey was carried out. This identified several problems including evidence of rising damp to several of the walls; a vertical crack running down the gable brickwork which was likely exacerbating the damp problem to the external rear right wall; and dampness to the top floor chimney breast. In respect of the chimney breast, the contractor suggested that the landlord check the roof flashings in the first instance.
On 8 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to express his unhappiness that, despite various inspections “nothing gets done”. The landlord raised a repair to the flashing the next day along with damp proofing work and repointing ofthe gable wall.
Also on 8 November 2021, the landlord inspected the bathroom noting that the baths were not full size and very shallow. It noted that, even without the health issues of the family, the baths were not fit for purpose. It noted there were 2 bathrooms next to each that had the same undersized baths.
The landlord noted later that month that one of its lead engineers had visited the property and identified approximately 30 square metres of repointing and 6 to 8 linear metres of stitching and reinforcement to the outer wall.
In early December 2021 an asbestos survey identified textured coating remnants (that contained white asbestos – chrysotile) to the walls on the first and second floor landings. It noted that the material was unsealed and the material risk assessment for the release of fibres was low. It recommended that a licensed asbestos contractor undertook remedial action.
The landlord subsequently raised a job for this work in October 2022 but cancelled it noting the asbestos contractor had said that the resident would have to have a decant for the work to be carried out as the works were on the stairwell and would block access to the upstairs rooms.
On 7 March 2022 the damp contractor told the landlord that the resident had refused access that morning saying he did not want the works to go ahead. They said they had therefore closed the job.
In October 2022 work to lay new insulation in the attic was raised and cancelled by the operative noting “a new job was required”. The landlord also raised a job to render the external wall. (That work was cancelled in March 2024.)
On 26 October 2022 the landlord told the asbestos contractor that it would have to postpone works until further notice.
Over 4 months later, on 9 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, via its app, about repairs at the property that had been outstanding for 6 years. He said these included damp and leaks in the chimney stack, bedroom and outside walls; rising damp; an outside wall was damaged due to subsidence, and he could “see the outside from the upstairs hallway”; replacement baths; and the removal of asbestos. The resident said he felt the landlord did not care even though the family had a lot of health problems.
On 11 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about insulation work to the attic. The landlord noted the resident had been told they would have to have a decant for 4 to 5 days for the work to be completed but he said, with children with learning difficulties, he was concerned that they would not respond well to a temporary move. This job was cancelled on 26 June 2023.
Following a call with the resident on 15 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident about the clearing of the loft space and fitting insulation, rendering and painting the exterior wall, damp and mould and asbestos removal. It said it would respond within 10 working days.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about the decant. It noted the make up of the household and their vulnerabilities. It noted the property had been converted by a previous tenant to have 6 bedrooms, so all the children had their own bedrooms. The resident said that the council did not have any properties available for the family. The landlord noted that finding the family a property of that size was going to be very difficult.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the local council to see if it had any properties available for the resident and his family. It noted the property had significant damp, mould and asbestos issues.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord told the resident the complaint had been accepted for escalation to stage 2 of its complaint procedures.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response. It said that to resolve matters it was seeking to permanently move the family with the household splitting into 2 households – the parents and the boys; and the 2 daughters. It said it had taken appropriate action to find a solution to move the family. However, due to the size of the property they required at that stage (6 bedrooms) this was an “extremely difficult and certainly impossible task”. It said it was working proactively to find suitable properties for the family as soon as possible. The landlord added there was some learning for it to take about large and complex property issues that it would take forward which included having a discussion early on about downsizing. It signposted the residents to the Ombudsman.
On 13 November 2023 the local council informed the landlord of an inspection the next day following a complaint from the resident about the condition of his housing. We have not seen the outcome of that inspection.
On 22 December 2023 the landlord’s building inspector noted the repairs that were required following its site inspection the previous day. These included an external crack to the side elevation wall due to structural movement; asbestos removal; all internal walls required replastering; ground floors required self-level screed; chimney stack to be inspected for leaks due to water ingress to bedroom ceiling; water ingress and damp; mould treatment; loft insulation; and modernisation of the bathrooms. The building inspector noted that, due to the amount of required works, the residents might need to be decanted.
The landlord raised a drain survey the same day in relation to structural movement. It also noted “the most immediate action is to make the building watertight and safe”.
On 9 January 2024 a structural survey of the property took place which identified cracking and bowing to the walls. It noted “the damage was longstanding in nature”.
In an internal email on 1 February 2024 the repairs contractor noted that the property required a building inspection. They said, “there is a crack inside the house that goes through to the external, and day light can be viewed” … the property “is in a terrible state”.
On 21 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that his youngest daughter had just came out of hospital due to a chest infection. He said she could no longer sleep in her bedroom as the damp and mould had got worse. The landlord responded the next day and said it would contact him the following week. The resident chased the landlord the next week.
On 16 July 2024 the landlord gave the Ombudsman an update. It said that a 2‑bedroom property had been allocated to the residents’ daughters in the local area. It said, for the remaining residents, it would need to use the private sector for temporary accommodation adding that 4-bedroomed properties within the private sector were also difficult to come by. The landlord added that the residents did not wish to return to the property once a suitable property had been found for them.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he described widespread damp and mould, leaking chimney stacks and a crack in the wall which meant they could see the outside world through it. He said he believed the council had recently issued a notice for the landlord to get the repairs done. In relation to a move, he said the landlord had offered them a 3-bedroom property, but the vulnerabilities of his children meant that was not appropriate. The resident said his own health had deteriorated and it was believed he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While the landlord did not consider its handling of the repairs in its complaint response, we have considered this aspect of the complaint because we consider there is evidence of a complaint handling failure (see below). This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.
The resident mentions his own health and that of his younger daughter which is relevant to the complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his and his daughter’s health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the family, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the general risk posed by the damp and mould and its response to the resident’s concerns about their health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including
1. Drains, gutters and external pipes.
2. The roof.
3. Outside walls.
4. Internal walls, floors and ceilings.
5. Chimneys and chimney stacks.
6. Plasterwork.
The tenancy agreement also says that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order any installation provided by it including baths. These responsibilities reflect the obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and improvements policy that was in place from 2019 to March 2023 said that it classified repairs as emergency, urgent or routine. It said that emergency repairs included those where the properties were unsecure or hazardous; urgent repairs included where there were minor water leaks, and all other repairs were classified as routine. The policy gave details of response times which were 4 hours to complete or make safe emergency repairs; urgent repairs completed within 5 working days; and routine repairs completed within 20 working days.
The repairs and maintenance policy introduced in March 2023 classified repairs as either emergency or non-emergency. The response time for an emergency repair increased to 24 hours while non-emergency repairs have a target of 28 calendar days. The policy introduced a new category or repairs ‘P4 works’ which is for larger or more complex works which should be completed within 90 calendar days subject to resources and capacity of trades teams and external contractors.
In August 2022 the landlord introduced a damp, mould and condensation policy. This says the landlord is committed to ensuring that people living within its homes are safe and free from damp, condensation, and mould. It said the landlord is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to instances of damp, condensation and mould that are found within its homes.
The policy sets out that the landlord will provide appropriate response times to repairing defects within the home which may contribute to damp, condensation, and mould. It says these include heating repairs, repairs to leaks and damage to roofs. The policy also says it will maintain homes to avoid penetrating and rising damp and for undertaking remedial works if these do occur.
The policy says that the landlord will take swift action to ensure repairs are carried out quickly to prevent further damage and that support will be offered to the customer during this stressful time including a dedicated repairs officer to ensure the customer is kept informed. It adds that, where the situation requires major remedial works, customers will be offered temporary accommodation until the situation is resolved and all works are completed.

Damp and mould including a cracked wall and a leak from the chimney stack

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to remedy the damp issues at the property. The landlord identified rising damp in early 2018. The evidence suggests that some damp-proofing subsequently took place in the dining room and kitchen; however, in late November 2018 the landlord noted that the damp proof course had failed in the kitchen. There is no evidence of further action at that time to remedy this and a damp survey in October 2021 again identified rising damp to several walls which suggests that any previous work had not been successful in remedying this matter. That survey also identified a leak to the chimney breast and a vertical crack to an outer wall that was exacerbating the damp.
It appears the landlord had previously identified the crack to the wall because its contractor had suspended the job due to a lack of access as the neighbour was away. The job was later cancelled in May 2021 as the resident had not provided a new date. That cancellation was not reasonable because it was not the resident’s responsibility to act as an intermediary between the contractor and the neighbour. This was the landlord’s responsibility, and this was a failing which meant that no action was taken in relation to this wall repair until a new job was raised in November 2021 following the second damp survey and contact from the resident. This job, which included action to check the roof flashing in relation to the leak to the chimney breast, was subsequently cancelled with the damp contractor noting that the resident had not given access. These repairs were identified again in a survey in December 2023. These works remain outstanding.
We have not seen any evidence of access being refused at that time. We have seen evidence that the resident was chasing this matter in August 2022 and the landlord noted someone should contact him. There is no evidence that it did so at that time. That was a failing.
Even if access had been refused, the landlord still had a repairing obligation in relation to the leak to the chimney breast and the cracked wall. It would have been reasonable in those circumstances for the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain that with a view to gaining access. Had access still not been given at that stage, then it should have explored its options including taking legal action to gain access. It was not reasonable for the landlord to cease its action in relation to the damp at that stage. The evidence does not show that any further action was taken in relation to the damp and mould. While the landlord decided that a decant was appropriate, that did not release it from its repair responsibilities. When it was clear there would be a delay in finding alternative accommodation, the landlord should have considered what repairs it could have carried out with the family still in the property. There is no evidence that it did so and that was a failing.
When the resident submitted a formal complaint in March 2023, he said that he could “see the outside from the upstairs hallway”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take urgent action to investigate; however, there is no evidence that it inspected the property until December 2023 some 9 months later. That delay was not appropriate as a repair of this type meant the property was not secure and should have been treated as an emergency repair. In a subsequent structural survey carried out the following month, the surveyor noted that this damage was “longstanding”.
The landlord did not act appropriately in this case. Although it acknowledged the extent of the damp (describing it as “really bad” throughout several rooms in November 2021), it did not recognise that this meant the property was in a hazardous condition and take action in line with its repair policy that was in place at that time. Even when resident made the landlord aware that there was an open crack in an exterior wall, the landlord did not act quickly. Its failure to take robust action on the rising damp, the cracked wall and the leak meant that the residents have been living in a property affected by significant damp and mould since 2018. This has had a serious detrimental impact on the resident and his family over a sustained period of time in terms of distress and inconvenience as well as the time, trouble and frustration in chasing these matters over a number of years. We have considered compensation for all the repair issues, below.

Insulation for the attic

The evidence shows that a job was raised in October 2022 to clear the loft space and fit insulation. That job was cancelled a week later. The operative noted a completely new job was required but no further explanation was given. There is no evidence any follow-up action was taken until December 2023 when, following an inspection of the property, it was noted that the loft required further insulation.
The landlord’s handling of the insulation to the loft was not appropriate. It is reasonable to presume that would have been a routine repair and therefore should have been carried out within 20 working days, that is by mid-November 2022. This repair remains outstanding. This means that the family were living in a property that it is reasonable to presume was colder than it should have been due to insufficient insulation. This evidently caused the resident and his family inconvenience and distress over a significant period of time. The Ombudsman has also considered this when assessing compensation.

Replacement baths

The landlord’s handling of the replacement baths was not appropriate. While it acknowledged as early as November 2018 that the baths were unusable and later, in June 2019, that at least one of the bathrooms was not fit for purpose, it did not take any action to resolve this matter for the resident and his family.
While the Decent Homes Standard does not stipulate the required size of a bath, it is clear that the landlord staff who inspected the bathroom came to a view that they were “awful” and not fit for purpose. While there was a shower over one of the baths, the landlord noted in November 2021 that this shower was “tiny” also. It was not reasonable for the landlord to ignore the concerns of its repair operatives.
The survey in December 2023 noted that the bathrooms needed modernisation. This work remains outstanding. This means that the resident and his family have been living with substandard bathrooms for a significant period of time. This evidently caused the resident and his family inconvenience and distress.

Asbestos

In December 2021 the asbestos contractor identified asbestos on the walls of the landings from where the resident had stripped wallpaper. They recommended remedial action. There is no evidence the landlord took any action for 10 months when, in October 2022, it raised a job for its removal. It was appropriate for the landlord to decide to remove the remnants of the wallpaper as that was in line with its repairs policy which says that all legal requirements in relation to asbestos are aimed at reducing exposure to asbestos fibres to as low as is reasonably practicable. However, the delay in raising the work was not appropriate. This would have been classed as a routine repair and should have been carried out within 20 working days in line with the repair policy in place at the time. We note this job was cancelled as a decant was required while the work took place. This work remains outstanding.
We note further that in its correspondence with the local council in July 2023, the landlord referred to “substantial” amounts of asbestos and that no works could be done before its removal. That statement is not backed up by the asbestos report of December 2021 which identified a limited area of low-risk asbestos. This suggests that the landlord had lost sight of what asbestos works were required. There is also no evidence that the landlord explained the outcome of the asbestos survey to the resident or explained that the risk was low. The landlord’s communication about the level of asbestos in the property and its risk was not reasonable with either the resident or the local council. That was a failing.
In summary, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of resident’s reports of various repairs because it did not take effective action to resolve the reported issues. In particular the rising damp and the leak from the chimney breast which meant the resident and his family lived in a property with damp and mould over a long period. This had a significant detrimental impact on a vulnerable family which the landlord has not sought to remedy through its complaint handling.

Compensation

The Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident and his family’s mental and/or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the residents.
Financial compensation of £12,000 is appropriate in this case for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by the failings identified in relation to the handling of the repairs. This is approximately a third (33%) of the rent from January 2019 to the end of August 2024 (which we calculated as approximately (£36,500). We have linked the compensation to the rent because the repair issues impacted the resident’s use of the property This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the family which meant the repair issues had a greater impact on them than they would have had if they did not have vulnerabilities.
The sums awarded in this report are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been significant delays in investigating and remedying repair issues which had a severe impact on the household members. The sums ordered reflect the fact that the resident’s vulnerabilities were an aggravating factor.

The landlord’s handling of a move for the family

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy says that when a home requires major works, is due to be redeveloped or is part of a regeneration scheme, a resident may need to move to an alternative home, preferably to another one of its homes. It says that, if this is not possible, it will liaise with other housing providers to find suitable alternative homes. The homes may be temporary or permanent and it will liaise with the resident throughout the process. The landlord’s damp and mould action plan says that the landlord will decant customers where deemed necessary including the use of hotels and private lets.
The landlord first identified that a decant was required in October 2022. There is no evidence of any communication with the resident about the decant until June 2023, some 8 months later when it spoke to him about the needs of the family. Had the landlord taken action more promptly, it is possible that a suitable property might have been identified. The resident would have also had assurance that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to find an alternative property, which may have lessened their distress at the situation.
The landlord acknowledged, as do we, that finding a 6-bedroom property would have been challenging and it was reasonable for it to ask the local council for assistance and to consider private lets. The landlord also acted proactively in finding accommodation for the 2 elder daughters who now share a flat in the local area, which we understand they moved into very recently.
While we can see that the landlord contacted the local council to see if it had any suitable accommodation for the family, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord tried other housing providers in the local area. While we cannot say with any certainty that a suitable property would have been available, starting the search process earlier would have given the landlord a better chance of finding a property. To date it has not been able to identify a suitable accommodation.
Given the very poor state of the property, the landlord should take action as a matter of priority to explore accommodating the family both in the long and short term. In doing so, the landlord should bear in mind the vulnerabilities of the household and the educational needs of the younger son. It would be helpful for the landlord to speak to the family about their needs to ensure any changes are taken into consideration.
We acknowledge that the properties available in its housing stock may be limited and therefore all alternative options should be considered. The landlord should seek advice from the local council’s homelessness team who have expertise in rehousing families in urgent situations. It should also contact other local housing associations to seen if they have a suitable property that might be available for the family. The landlord should provide an update to us and the resident every 2 weeks on the action it has taken in relation to a move until a suitable transfer has been found and it has supported the family with this move.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £400 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of communication about the decant.

The associated complaint

At the time of the events complained about, the landlord had a 2-stage complaint procedure. It aimed to respond at stage one within 10 days and at stage 2 within 20 days. (From March 2024 these timescales were amended to refer to working days.)
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because:
1. It did not address the complaint itself that is, its handling of various repairs. Instead, its response focussed on the efforts to move the family.
2. It did not give a complaint response at stage one in line with its complaint procedures.
3. It delayed issuing a stage 2 complaint response for almost 7 months.
Having brought up the repair issues in his complaint, the resident had a right to expect the landlord to respond to them. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code first issued in April 2022 said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. By not investigating these concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify the full scale of the repairs required and take steps to try to resolve them sooner. It also missed an opportunity to consider the impact on the family and how that might be remedied.
There is no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s complaint of March 2023. That was a failing. It raised a complaint on 16 May 2023 after a conversation with him the previous day. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 in July 2023 without issuing a stage one complaint response. That was a further failing. Responding at only one stage of the complaint procedure poses a number of risks and is not in keeping with our dispute resolution principles. Only allowing one response to a complaint will be unfair if this does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident. Having a second stage allows for a review at a more senior level and brings a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint and may also ensure fuller consideration of both sides of a complaint.
The landlord took over 2 months to issue the stage 2 complaint response. This was not within the timescale of 20 days set out in its complaint procedures. There were major errors and delays in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case. These were multiple serious service failures which had caused significant detriment to the resident. We have therefore made a finding of severe maladministration.
It is evident that the landlord’s delays and poor complaint handling have caused inconvenience, frustration and distress to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £500 is appropriate for that impact which meant the landlord lost the opportunity to resolve significant problems at the earliest opportunity.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. The associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the decant.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. The landlord’s Chief Executive should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £12,900 made up of:
  1. £12,000 for the impact on the resident and his family of the landlord’s handling of the reported repair issues.
  2. £400 for the impact of the landlord’s communication relating to the decant for the family.
  3. £500 for the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. In relation to a move for the family, the landlord should:
  1. Consider speaking to the resident about the needs of the family (if it has not done so recently).
  2. Contact other local housing associations to seen if they have a suitable property that might be available.
  3. Seek advice from the local council’s homelessness team.
4. In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review at senior management level of its practices around repairs and its procedures relating to properties that may cause a significant risk to residents (such as where there is damp or subsidence) and the action it would be appropriate for it to take in these circumstances (including consideration of a decant).
  2. Identify all other residents who are affected by damp/mould and or subsidence and make recommendations for action to resolve these repair issues. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure.
  3. Undertake a review of what happened in relation to the resident’s initial complaint in this case and feedback to relevant staff to ensure such poor handling does not happen again.
  4. The landlord should provide a copy of these reports to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the reviews. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord should provide an update to us and the resident every 2 weeks on the action it has taken in relation to a move until a suitable transfer has been found and it has supported the family with this move.