Final inpsection report

[chowbarry]

Please help me improve the following inspection report. Thank you very much.

Upon the receipt of 4 number of complaints from the complainant through customer services department from 18.05.2016 to 09.06.2016, our staff immediately paid visits to the respective locations concerned from 24.05.2016 to 13.06.2016 and checked the plants and the trees. In general, we have the following findings and subsequent follow-up actions in the course of investigations before making written replies to the complainant on 24.06.2016:

1) The overall conditions of the plants and trees were normal after enduring pruning work and we didn't observe large number of dead plants caused by improper pruning in the course of inspections.

2) In one of the above complaint cases, our horticultural contractor did carry out pruning work on plants in the mentioned location shortly before the complainant lodged a complaint, but the contractor had immediately removed all the horticultural debris after work and indeed our staff didn't find a great load of horticultural debris left at the open drainage channels and on amenity areas during every visit.

3) Our staff had reminded the horticultural contractor of paying special attention to their horticultural maintenance work and to strengthen our supervision over the contractor, our staff had increased the daily discussions with them over the maintenance work and the frequency of checking the plants and trees on site.

4) It was undeniable that the condition of plants under the bridge of the railways was poor due to insufficient watering. The contractor did recognize the problem before the complainant lodged the complaint and they promised to replace all the wilting plants with new plants shortly. The contractor was then reminded to strengthen their watering and maintenance on the plants in future.

5) Some of locations where plants and trees were under poor maintenance in accordance with the complainant may be unclear and misleading, which made our investigation more difficult than expected and indeed we found the overall condition of plants and trees were normal, which is apparently contradictory to the complainant's statement. We once tried to ask the complainant for the details of contact for further clarifying the locations concerned, but was refused by the complainant.

 

[teechar]

Upon [STRIKE]the receipt of 4 number of[/STRIKE] receiving four complaints [STRIKE]from the complainant[/STRIKE] through our customer service department [STRIKE]from[/STRIKE] between 18.05.2016 [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] and 09.06.2016, our staff [STRIKE]immediately paid visits to[/STRIKE] promptly visited the respective locations concerned [STRIKE]from[/STRIKE] between 24.05.2016 [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] and 13.06.2016 and checked the plants and the trees.

In general, we have the following findings and subsequent follow-up actions in the course of investigations before making written replies to the complainant on 24.06.2016:

1) The overall conditions of the plants and trees were [STRIKE]normal[/STRIKE] satisfactory after [STRIKE]enduring[/STRIKE] pruning, [STRIKE]work[/STRIKE] and we didn't observe a large number of dead plants caused by improper pruning in the course of inspections.

2) [STRIKE]In[/STRIKE] With respect to one of the above complaint cases, our horticultural contractor did carry out pruning work on plants in the mentioned location shortly before the complainant lodged their complaint, but the contractor had immediately removed all the horticultural debris after completion of their work and, indeed, our staff didn't find a great load of horticultural debris left at the open drainage channels [STRIKE]and on[/STRIKE] or in amenity areas during [STRIKE]every[/STRIKE] their inspection visits.

3) Our staff had reminded the horticultural contractor [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] to pay [STRIKE]ing[/STRIKE] special attention to their horticultural maintenance work and, to strengthen our supervision [STRIKE]over[/STRIKE] of the contractor, our staff had increased the daily discussions with them over the maintenance work and the frequency of checking the plants and trees on site.

4) It was undeniable that the condition of plants under the railway bridge [STRIKE]of the railways[/STRIKE] was poor due to insufficient watering. The contractor did recognize the problem before the complainant lodged the complaint and they promised to replace all the wilting plants with new plants shortly. The contractor was then reminded to [STRIKE]strengthen[/STRIKE] improve their watering and maintenance [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] of the plants in future.

5) Some oflocations where plants and trees were underpoor maintenance in accordance with the complainant may be unclear and misleading, which made our investigation more difficult than expected and indeed we found the overall condition of plants and trees were normal, which is apparently contradictory to the complainant's statement. We once tried to ask the complainant for the details of contact for further clarifying the locations concerned, but was refused by the complainant.

I could not understand the text in red. You need to rewrite it in clear and simple language.