Swindon Borough Council (202125858)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125858

Swindon Borough Council

24 October 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom bungalow which began in June 2021.
The resident has reported vulnerabilities to this service, due to his mental health, hearing impairment, and physical disabilities. The landlord has clarified it is unaware when it became aware of the vulnerabilities, but it would say it was aware at least at the start of his current tenancy in June 2021.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days, and a written record of the complaint can be provided upon request. It stated it would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it was unable to do so, it would update the resident on its progress and advise it was extending the deadline by an additional 10 days at both stage 1 and at stage 2.
The tenancy agreement states that:
1. The landlord must carry out certain urgent or qualifying repairs within a set time and the details were available on its website.
2. It is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside of the property including window frames and sills.
The landlord does not have a repairs policy however its tenancy handbook identifies it is responsible for repairing and maintaining most of the items it provided in the property when the tenancy began and subsequently. It states it will only repair or replace items because of fair wear and tear. It puts its repairs into 3 categories which are:
1. Emergency repairs, for situations which were actually or potentially dangerous and where there is a serious risk to the health and safety of people. This also included repairs where immediate action would prevent serious damage to property.
2. Urgent repairs which it would complete the next working day.
3. Non urgent repairs which would take no longer than 40 working days to complete.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that it was aware of the need for repairs with the property’s fencing/gate in January 2020. It then arranged for two surveys to be completed, one in March 2020 which was abandoned, and another on 9 April 2020. The records say the survey remains outstanding.
Between August 2021 and October 2021, the landlord’s “tenant diary notes” show that the landlord and resident spoke about repairs which were required to the property. An inspection was raised to identify any repairs needed to the wooden gates. It planned for contractors to attend and complete repairs. Other repairs were also raised including the kitchen fan and draws in October 2021.The resident also reported an issue with an installed fan causing his electrics to ‘blow’. It is unclear if this was a separate extractor fan, or the fan installed in the kitchen. It was agreed another electrician would attend to rectify the fan issue and it was identified that the gate also required repairs. The works to the fan were completed on 22 October 2021. The landlord explained to the resident that it would look to repair items before replacing them.
There was further communication between the landlord and resident in November 2021. The resident said that its contractors had visited to measure up for new gates. He expressed dissatisfaction and said its contractors had visited, measured up, and told him, they were going to pick up the new gates and would return that afternoon if they were in stock. If they were not, they would return the following day. He said this was another lie and he had waited a whole week for them to be fitted. He explained the issue had been ongoing for 3 months and was “getting out of hand”.
There were internal discussions where the landlord sought clarity on the situation. Its contractor stated that it had informed the resident that if the gates were in stock it would be back the following day to fit them, and if not, they would need to be made up by their manufacturer and another appointment would be made. The contractor further stated they told the resident the gates would not be fit that day. The size of the gates required were not available at the time but were now ready to be picked up and installed once “planned in.” The landlord then explained to the resident a week later that the contractors had confirmed the new gates would be ready for installation and clarified the reason for them not returning. The resident then raised new repair issues on 24 November 2021 with the landlord. It is unclear if these reports were in relation to the gate or separate repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 and said he had not heard back since “his letter” and asked if an inspection could be completed regarding the new issues. He also queried about an appointment to fit the gates as they were in stock. It is unclear which letter the resident was referring to. The landlord confirmed that a general inspection was raised, and it was waiting to get the gate works booked in once it knew how long it was going to take. The landlord emailed the resident to check on progress and outcome of the inspection which was booked in for 20 December 2021. It also told him that the works for the gates was booked in for 13 January 2022.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 January 2022. This service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint. It responded on 5 January 2022 and said it could not accept his enquiry as a complaint due to the unacceptable and unreasonable comments made in the complaint. It then queried internally on 14 January 2022 about contractor availability to complete the required works. It is not clear which works the landlord was referring to. It said internally from its understanding, the resident did not want any works conducted until after 1pm but unfortunately the necessary works would take all day, so it was not practical to start in the middle of the day. The resident disputed the statement and explained he only asked for an appointment after 1pm on one occasion. He said he would like to be made aware when the contractors were coming and for them to knock on his door on arrival.
The landlord noted internally following the inspection, the member of staff who completed it had left the organisation, and no jobs had been raised so it was unsure if they were passed on. The landlord’s note states the resident believed the landlord did it on purpose to annoy him and he queried why they could not do the work when they said they would. It explained to him that there were some backlogs, staff shortages, and it could not see the outcome of the survey. He was advised he might require another inspection. 10 days later, the landlord updated the resident and apologised for the delay. It said another inspection had been raised as they could not find the notes from the previous inspection, and it was booked for 14 February 2022. It told him the gates would be done soon. This service has not been provided with any information on what the inspection was about or its results.
The resident contacted this service several times between February and June 2022. He explained that he had made previous complaints to the landlord which had been either ignored or dismissed and that he felt as though the landlord was discriminating against him. The resident expressed frustration at the delays and missed appointments for the repairs he had reported. The resident explained that he had not received a response from the landlord to his complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide both a stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident. On 25 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about missed appointments. He informed it that he had recorded everything that was said at his last appointment, and he would be going to the Ombudsman about the repairs due to the ongoing issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022 and explained he had been informed that the appointment for the gates was made for 8am till 4pm on that day. He then said the contractors had not contacted him on his mobile as they said they had. They also had not rang his doorbell or knocked on his door. He said he had been waiting since 6:30am for them to attend, no one had knocked, and he checked his CCTV and doorbell cameras. He contacted the landlord again and said he received an email from it informing him the workmen were on their way to fit the gates, and 10 minutes later they were knocking at his door. He said it had taken over 5 months for the landlord to fit the gates. He then raised an issue with the work completed by the contractors due to a gap in the gate.
Following contact from this service, on 21 March 2022, the landlord said it had responded to both the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It said it had responded at stage 2 on 11 March 2022 and that the resident wanted a telephone response. It said it completed this twice and provided notes of the call. The notes state that it had raised and scheduled all jobs and it would call him back to ensure he was aware of the appointments. They also say that the landlord had spoken with him and agreed for the electricians to attend. It said it had attended and resolved the electrical element of the complaint. It told this service since it had responded by telephone, it was not aware of any other concerns from the resident, but it would contact him and discuss it with him.
The landlord contacted this service and explained that the resident preferred to be responded to via telephone and not email or letter, and therefore did not have any files as such for records. It provided an email which outlined the details of the telephone call. The email explained:
1. It had been in a lengthy telephone call with the resident following his complaint about it not attending a repair appointment and him objecting to being red flagged.
2. He reiterated the points he had raised to this service and explained about the fact that he took medication in the morning which could render him a little difficult to understand.
3. He had asked on many occasions that repairs and inspections took place during the afternoons when the influence of his medication had worn off.
4. He advised that his property was damp and the levels of humidity in his bedroom and living room was greater than 60% and this would therefore be a cause for condensation. He also explained that a contributor to the high levels of humidity was that the Double Glazed Unit’s (DGUs) had blown and allowed moisture ingress.
5. He said he had recently been visited by a surveyor and his neighbourhood housing officer had not been advised of the outcome of the visit. The landlord then said that it had “no knowledge of the history with the resident”. It said it should be:
  1. Renewing the blown DGU’s as soon as possible and asked to be advised on when the work was planned for and if he had been advised.
  2. Understanding the resident’s condition and arranging for repairs appointments to be in the afternoon.
  3. If a longer repairs appointment was required, then it should email him to explain so that he would avoid taking his medication.
  4. Give him a detailed explanation as to why he was ‘’Red Flagged’’ in person and then in writing so that it has an audit trail.
Following the Ombudsman’s involvement, on 5 May 2022, the landlord was issued with a Complaint Handling Failure Order as it did not provide the resident with the response to the complaint in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.
The landlord contacted this service on 11 May 2022, and explained that it had spoken to the resident about his stage 1 complaint over the telephone on 3 separate occasions between 4 March 2022 and 7 April 2022. This was because of his request for telephone call responses. It said:
1. It had resolved the issues with the faulty wiring and electrics.
2. Its surveyor visited on 14 February 2022 about the blown DGUs and inspected the kitchen, wet room, and lounge windows. It found the DGUs to the windows in the kitchen and wet room needed replacing and agreed with him for the defective glazing to be replaced. He said he wanted the landlord to replace the units to the windows in his lounge and bedroom, as it was his opinion, they were defective.
3. He advised that ‘if they were not willing to replace all the units to the windows, then they should not bother replacing any at all’. In accordance with his statement, no replacement glazing was then ordered. However, in recognition of his requests, it would replace all the double-glazed units at the property. It raised a job for the repairs to windows in the kitchen and the wet room, however, “all other jobs were raised on 14 February 2022”.
4. It attended and completed a job on 1 March 2022 to fit a new humistat fan in the property to address the humidity levels. The fans run constantly, reduces humidity levels and assists to eliminate condensation.
5. During the repairs surveyors visit on 14 February 2022 a patch of defective plaster and a crack where the ceiling abuts the wall in the wet room was identified. It raised and attended on 9 March 2022 to have the wall/s replastered to address the structural damage reported. A decorator attended on 14 March 2022 and repainted the wet room.
6. A job was attended to and completed on 2 March 2022 to repair the gate. A job was raised on 9 April 2020 to repair the fencing but was not completed. It would be reinspected, and a new job raised.
7. The doors to the kitchen and wet room were binding and a job was raised to ease the doors, but as this had not been completed, it would be reallocated.

The landlord then explained it had upheld his complaint, replaced all DGU’s as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of several uncompleted repair jobs.

This service contacted the landlord on 24 May 2022 and asked it to clarify if its contact of 11 May 2022 was its final response. The landlord was told that if it was, it should provide the resident with a formal final response by 31 May 2022.
The landlord provided the resident with a written stage 1 response on 25 May 2022. It explained it had previously discussed its investigation findings with him on 7 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and thanked him for raising his complaint. It provided the resident with an update and explained he had requested appointments be scheduled after 11am and it had discussed this with its customer contact centre and scheduling team. They were aware of his need for appointments after 11am, but its system did not include a facility to ensure this was done automatically so it relied on staff being prompted by a manual process. It said it endeavoured to ensure that it adhered to his request but if it did not, he should advise the scheduler and they would rearrange to suit. The landlord offered its sincerest apologies for the inconvenience the resident experienced.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to this service on 20 July 2022. The response was dated 27 June 2022, but it is unclear if the response was provided to the resident on this date. It explained:
1. About the outstanding works both pre and post him moving into the property, there was one outstanding job. This was the DGU units which were being manufactured and it was due to undertake work relating to their replacement on 29 June 2022. It said the inadequate communication with him was regrettable and apologised that it had not communicated effectively. It said its repairs team had now recruited 3 new managers which would lead to a significant improvement with resident communications regarding repairs timescales.
2. Regarding the contact from its staff member from March 2022, it said the misunderstanding was regrettable and was due to a change of staff and limited resources within the repairs management team during March 2022. It said the team had now recruited 3 new managers so such incidents would not be repeated as its repairs team now had an established management team. The landlord’s response stated if he remained unhappy with the response, he could refer his complaint to the “Tenant complaints panel” or alternatively he could contact the “Housing Participation officer.”

Post complaint

The landlord and resident continued to communicate with this service between July 2022 and June 2023. The resident explained he had not received the landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 July 2022, but confirmed the windows had been repaired. He explained the issues he believed were outstanding such as the landlord’s provision of dates for when the works were to be completed, and clarity on the complaints process. The landlord confirmed in a response to another complaint that it had been made aware on 7 April 2022 about the effects of his medication and the need for later appointments. It also told this service it became aware of the resident’s need for appointments after 1pm in May 2022, and that he had informed it of a diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental condition.
The landlord’s records show that its supplier for the DGUs raised works on 13 June 2022 which were completed 30 July 2022. In June 2023, the resident raised new issues with the landlord and identified the glazing repairs had not been completed and had been outstanding for a year. He also stated the issues with the fans remained outstanding since 2021 and his property remained humid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident raised issues about the landlord red flagging him on its systems. He was informed this was being considered under a separate complaint he had brought to this service. He then subsequently withdrew the complaint. This investigation will not consider the red flagging issues but will focus on the repairs, the complaint handling.
The resident also raised concerns about discrimination against him based on his mental health. This service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination about the landlord’s actions. Such matters are better dealt with by the courts. If the resident feels he has unlawfully been discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice for further information. This service is however able to consider how the landlord treated the resident in relation to his request for reasonable adjustments.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Replacement of double-glazed window units

The landlord has not provided this service with information on when the resident made it aware that the DGUs required replacing. As such the Ombudsman has been unable to assess if it acted in a timely manner to address the issue. This raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord took a customer focused approach in agreeing to replacing the additional windows that in its opinion did not require replacing at the time. It was not under an obligation to do, but to resolve the resident’s concerns, it assumed responsibility for them.
In its response, the landlord said it had “raised the other works” for the DGUs. It is unclear if it meant that it raised all the works for all DGUs which required replacing at the same time, or if it raised the works for the kitchen and wet room DGUs at a separate time prior to or after the remainder of the replacements.
The landlord’s records show that the required works were logged on 14 February 2022 and completed 29 June 2022. This shows that there was a delay of 4.5 months between it logging the works and completing them. Its records show that it was unable to attend on two concurrent days due to the resident’s prior commitments. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it explained a reason for the delay to the resident. It has explained that the windows were being manufactured but has not provided an explanation of the usual timescales in which they would be expected to be produced. It also failed to update the resident on any estimated installation dates.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable. While this service acknowledges that suppliers may have longer lead times depending on the product, which would delay the works, this should be clearly explained to residents at the earliest opportunity. It should then keep them informed of any further delays and have regular and informative communications to build good relations. The lack of explanation in this instance left the resident feeling as though there was no progress with his repairs. It should have provided the resident with an explanation on how long it was likely to take for them to be manufactured. This would have also allowed it to manage his expectations.

Installation of extractor fan

The landlord has not provided this service with the date the resident made it aware that there were humidity issues with his property. As such this service has not been able to assess if it acted in a timely manner in its response to the resident’s request. This again raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord’s records show a job was raised on 14 February 2022 and completed 3 March 2022 for the humidistat. This falls within the timeframes for non-urgent repairs as identified in its tenant handbook. However, it is unclear to this service how the installation of a humidistat fan in the bathroom, would aid in reducing humidity in lounge and bedroom as reported by the resident. The landlord has also provided no explanation of this to the resident or this service or how it arrived at the decision to install the humidistat in the bathroom.

Fence/ Gate installation.

When the resident raised an issue with the landlord’s contractor, it appropriately went back to clarify and get the perspective of the issue from both the resident and the contractor and provided the resident with the necessary information about the works. Despite this however, there were issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fence/gate.
The landlord failed to keep accurate records following its survey of the resident’s property, prior to its member of staff leaving the organisation. At the time, it had an adjustment in place of 2 officers visiting the resident’s property at any appointment. As such at least 1 or both operatives should have provided a record of the visit and the outcome of the survey on the landlord’s systems. As this did not happen, this then led to an inability to raise follow on works, unnecessary duplication of work which added to delays in completing the required works, and to further frustration for the resident. This also raises issues around the landlord’s recording practices. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on Knowledge and Information management in May 2023, an order has been made below for the landlord to review this.
The landlord acknowledges works were raised prior to the resident moving into the property in April 2020 regarding the fencing for the gate. It has not provided any reasons for the 3 month delay between January and March 2020 in raising the inspection of the gate. Its records also do not provide a reason why the survey was marked as “abandoned” but had a completion date of 14 April 2020. A further survey was raised on 9 April 2020, but has no completion date. No works then appear to have been completed on the gate until 2022, after the complaint reached this service. This means there had been a delay of at least 2 years from the landlord becoming aware of the need for repairs to the fence, and it accepting it needed to attend to the repair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable. Whilst a detriment was not caused to the resident throughout the entirety of the 2 year period, it does however raise questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
It then took the landlord 5 months to complete the required repairs/ replacement to the resident’s gate from the point he notified it of the issue. The landlord explained that there were delays due to the need for the gates to be manufactured. However, the overall length of delay in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was unacceptable, and caused the resident frustration. The landlord’s records say the gates were ordered on 26 October 2021 and it confirmed they had been manufactured in November 2021, but not installed until March 2022. There was then no explanation provided for the length of the delay in installing the gate.
There were also issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident around the repairs to the gate as he had to chase the landlord for updates and had to ask for clarification on what appointments were for. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord could have been more proactive in updating him and providing information. It also could have provided him with an approximate timescales, or a schedule to explain how long it would take for the works to be completed. Taking these measures would also have shown that it took a customer focused approach.
Further to the above, although it provided a record of repairs, this does not provide information, or an explanation for the delays. It also failed to provide this service with copies of or results of any surveys, or inspections it completed to inform its approach.
When asked by this service for information relating to the resident vulnerabilities, the landlord was unable to provide a clear date, but stated that it was aware from at least the start of the resident’s current tenancy. It has provided no evidence that it looked to investigate if any reasonable adjustments were necessary or required. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory. Once it became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure any reasonable adjustments which were required were put in place in a timely manner, and it appears it failed to do so.
On one occasion in January 2022 the resident requested an appointment after 1pm and this was treated as a permanent request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have kept accurate records differentiating his one-off requests from his permanent reason adjustment requests. The fact that this request was treated as permanent, led to issues with him being able to have repairs completed in a timely manner, and would have caused the resident frustration. Although the landlord looked to appropriately cater to the resident’s needs, its record keeping caused issues in this instance. It is also unclear from the evidence how long it took the landlord to resolve this.
From the evidence provided, the landlord did however act appropriately when it became aware of the resident’s required adjustments, by showing it had considered his request and agreeing he could arrange for a change to any appointments scheduled before 10am due to the impact of his medication.
In summary, although the landlord took some appropriate actions, there were delays in it completing the required repairs. There were also issues with its communication with the resident, and it should have identified sooner if the resident required any reasonable adjustments. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord has not provided this service with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint, or his escalation request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unsatisfactory and highlights further issues with its record keeping. It also makes it difficult for this service to ascertain if the landlord addressed all the resident’s complaints and if it did so in a timely manner.
The landlord failed to abide by its obligations under the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code as it did not provide the resident with a written response to his complaint at any stage until this services intervention. It was unsatisfactory that the Ombudsman had to get involved, to request this. It was also unacceptable that a complaint handling failure order had to be issued before the landlord issued the resident a written stage 1 response.
The landlord initially refused to accept the resident’s complaint based on its view that it was made in an unacceptable manner. It failed to provide this service with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint, as such the Ombudsman is unable to determine if its actions were reasonable. While the landlord has the right refuse complaints made in an unacceptable manner, the Ombudsman would expect it to make the resident aware of its reasons. It would also be expected to follow any unacceptable behaviour policy it may have, and clearly explain to the resident what actions he needed to take to resubmit the complaint in a way that would align with its policy. There is no evidence provided to suggest it did this, and this is unsatisfactory.
After declining the resident’s complaint in January 2022, the landlord said it provided a stage 1 response to the resident by telephone as early as March 2022. The landlord has not made it clear if it was providing a response to the complaint in January, if he had brought a new complaint to it which it was responding to, or explained why it might have changed its mind.
While the landlord made a telephone call to the resident which it deemed as its complaint response, this was 34 to 58 working days after the initial complaint made by the resident. It then failed to abide by the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code as it did not provide a formal written response at the completion of the stage 1 process. A written response was provided 90 working days late, and only provided after the intervention of this service. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unacceptable.
The landlord informed this service that it provided the resident with a stage 2 response in March 2022, prior to the Ombudsman’s request and it did so by telephone, based on the resident’s preference. Whilst positive it considered the resident’s request for adjustments, the complaint handling code is clear, the response should have been confirmed in writing, in conjunction with the telephone call.
Considering the resident requested he was contacted by telephone; this service would have expected to be provided with contemporaneous telephone records detailing the landlord’s conversations with the resident. These were not provided and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable.
The landlord then provided this service with a written response 13 working days outside of the deadline set by this service. Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence of when it provided the resident with the written stage 2 response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable.
Further to the delays in providing its response, there were further issues with the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses compliance with the code. The code is clear that written responses should clearly identify the complaint stage, the outcome, and the reasons for the landlord’s decision. In both its responses it failed to do this. Adherence to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code is an important requirement as it allows for a robust and meaningful complaints process and allows for outstanding issues to be identified and addressed. It also facilitates a learning opportunity for landlords to learn from customers and improve their services.
Following the stage 2 response, this service had to contact the landlord to clarify what the next stage of its process was. Its stage 2 response referred to a third stage process, whereas its website referred residents to the Ombudsman. The lack of clarity on this could lead to confusion for residents.
In summary, the landlord failed to provide this service with documents which would have aided in determining the reasonableness of its actions. It told the resident it would not be dealing with his complaint, but then did so and has provided no explanation on its change in stance. Its actions were also not compliant with the complaint handling code. Whilst this service understands it was taking the resident’s request into consideration, the telephone calls made to the resident cannot be deemed to be responses to his complaint as the code clearly states they must be in writing. Further to this its telephone response was late, and it only provided its written responses which were also late, due to the intervention of the Ombudsman. This would have led to frustration by the resident and saw him taking the time to approach this service to seek a resolution. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

There were several delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property, which were outside the timescales within its tenant handbook. There were also communication failings as it provided no evidence that it explained delays or provided reasons for delays to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unclear as it said it was not dealing with the resident’s complaint, then provided him with responses. It failed to show that it had explained why it had decided to provide him with response. It then failed to provide written responses in line with the complaint handling code, until the intervention of this service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around its failings.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £750. This comprises:
  1. £450 for the delays, and communication failures in the handling of the repairs.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Complete an inspection of the resident’s property, identifying any outstanding repairs and provide the resident and this service with a schedule of works.
Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information management, and identify recommendations which could aid it in its management of vulnerabilities and its record keeping.
Consider following up conversations with the resident in writing, to assist with record keeping and understanding agreed actions by the landlord with the resident.