London Borough of Hackney (202126095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126095

Hackney Council

31 January 2024 (amended at review)

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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports about disrepair.
2. The landlord’s response to safeguarding concerns.
3. The landlord’s handling of a subject data access request.
4. The local housing authority’s response to a court order concerning rehousing, following a suitability review.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a first floor flat on an estate. The resident has a learning disability, and complex physical and mental health conditions.
For context, the resident had raised several complaints about a member of staff of the landlord, between July 2020 and 23 November 2020, which were not upheld by the landlord. From here on in this report, the landlord’s member of staff will be referred to as the housing officer.
The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 11 May 2021, about the housing officer. The resident was unhappy that the housing officer had requested the resident remove a closed-circuit television camera (CCTV) from her front door, which the resident had installed for her own security. The resident added on 26 May 2021, that the housing officer had disclosed sensitive information about her to neighbours.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 May 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that it was satisfied that the housing officer had not disclosed any sensitive information to neighbours. It clarified that it did not permit CCTV cameras in communal areas. The landlord offered to meet the resident at her convenience.
The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 25 June 2021. The resident said the housing officer told her neighbour that she had complained about them. The housing officer told the resident that they were targeting her. She had a voice recording which evidenced this. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its complaint response.
The resident phoned the landlord on 8 November 2021, to escalate her complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 November 2021, to clarify the resident’s complaint. The resident said:
1. Neighbours were colluding against her, and she felt bullied. She believed that the housing officer was involved in this.
2. The housing officer was targeting the resident because they believed that the resident had scratched their car. The resident stated she had a recording of this interaction.
3. The housing officer was investigating the complaint about themself.
4. A neighbour was accessing a communal cupboard without authority.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 November 2021, in regard to the conduct of the housing officer, and bullying and harassment from neighbours. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The landlord:
1. Said it had found no evidence that any residents were accessing the communal intake cupboards but had instructed a lock change.
2. Clarified that all dog owners must always keep their dogs on a lead in the communal areas. The housing officer had acted appropriately by asking all neighbours to keep their dogs on a leash. The neighbour’s dog had not been found to be dangerous.
3. Clarified that residents were not permitted to install CCTV cameras in communal areas. The resident was permitted to install a CCTV camera if it only recorded the resident’s property. It said it was appropriate for the housing officer to have addressed this matter.
4. Said it found no evidence to indicate that the housing officer had accused the resident of scratching their car. The housing officer had noticed damage to their car on a site visit and had asked residents if they had seen what happened. Regrading the recording, the landlord said the resident should provide this, and it would assess this evidence.
5. The resident’s complaint about the housing officer had been investigated by their line manager.
6. Stated that the resident’s complaints regarding harassment from neighbours were being investigated by its ASB team. Its ASB officer had contacted the resident’s floating support worker and local police station to ensure that any safeguarding concerns were being met. A partnership meeting was to be arranged to discuss how ongoing issues might be best resolved.
7. Suggested that a named housing manager be a future point of contact for the resident, offered to meet the resident, and reoffered to arrange mediation with her neighbours.
On 30 May 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 complaint and asked for a review by a designated person. The resident said that she had been harassed and intimidated by her neighbours and the landlord was not listening to her. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted to be moved and warnings given to the neighbours. The designated person responded on 26 June 2022, stating that there was nothing that could be added to the resolution of the complaint and directed the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she felt that she was a victim of hate crime, carried out by a member of the landlord’s staff. She also felt that the landlord had done nothing to resolve her complaints about her neighbours. As a remedy the resident wanted an apology, the landlord to deal more effectively with ASB, and to be made a more suitable offer of accommodation. The resident wanted the Ombudsman to investigate several other matters, which fell outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is explained below.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate matters of a historical nature. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord is a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Predominately, this investigation will focus on the period between 25 December 2020 to 23 November 2021. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report references some events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaints.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. Accordingly, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports about disrepair falls outside of the scope of this investigation. While the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to safeguarding concerns did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord gave due regard to its obligations under safeguarding, when assessing its handling of the substantive issues.
Paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of a subject data access request, would be investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Paragraph 41d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Accordingly, the resident’s complaint about the local housing authority’s response to a court order concerning rehousing, following a suitability review, falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour and harassment from neighbours.

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported occurred or not. It is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure places responsibility for dealing with incidents of ASB with the landlord’s housing management team. The policy states that in most cases, a housing officer will carry out an initial investigation of the report. Of particular relevance in this case:
1. After receiving a report of ASB, the landlord will:
  1. Record and investigate every report of ASB. It will treat every report as confidential.
  2. Acknowledge the ASB report within 5 working days, or within 1 working day if the problem is very serious.
  3. Put an officer in charge of each case, agree an ‘action plan’ with the resident, monitor, keep the resident updated, and will review the case at least once a month.
2. Actions that the landlord might take:
  1. Help residents to deal with problems themselves or through mediation.
  2. Draw up a community or good-neighbour agreement.
  3. Use its legal powers where necessary to control ASB using injunctions or other targeted interventions. Where necessary and proportionate, it will take possession proceedings.
3. Support to residents:
  1. Assess each report of ASB and provide emotional and practical support to witnesses, such as alarms and patrols.
  2. Aim to reduce the risk to witnesses in more serious cases of ASB. It will provide access to equipment for collecting proof, such as CCTV. If possible, its staff and community safety partners will collect proof. In very rare circumstances it may contract surveillance experts to get certain proof.
The resident and landlord have both provided evidence to the Ombudsman, which indicates prolonged conflict between the resident and her neighbours over several years.
It is understood that the resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2021, following an incident with her neighbour. While the nature of this incident is unclear from the evidence seen, it is understood that this incident prompted the landlord to open an ASB case. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s report about this until 17 working days later. This exceeded expected response timescales set out under its ASB policy. This is a failing.
The landlord’s ASB case notes indicate that it successfully phoned the resident on 24 August 2021. The resident requested that it contact her hate crime advocate, which it did. This shows that the landlord was following the resident’s wishes.
There is then a gap in the landlord’s records until 27 September 2021, when it tried calling the resident again. Upon being unable to establish contact with the resident or leave a voice message, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have either visited the resident or sent a letter, asking her to get in touch. However, it was a further 9 working days before a letter was sent. Given that it was now nearly a month since its last conversation with the resident, and no risk assessment or action plan had been agreed, this lack of urgency was unreasonable. It is however noted that the resident did not respond to the landlord’s letter. It is unclear why the landlord did not also try to contact the resident’s advocate.
After not hearing from the resident from its letter, the landlord attempted to phone the resident once more, before carrying out a home visit on 29 October 2021. During its interview on this day, the resident described receiving threats from neighbours and expressed concerns about neighbours taking photographs of her. The Ombudsman has seen no contemporaneous notes from this meeting. The outcome of the meeting was not followed up in writing, which would have been good practice. The ASB case notes suggest that the resident was asked to keep the landlord updated. It has not been possible to determine based on fact whether a risk assessment was carried out, nor whether it was acting in accordance with the resident’s wishes.
Following meeting with the resident, and after receiving counter complaints from neighbours, the landlord held one to one meetings with concerned residents at a community hall. These meetings were held on 9 November 2021. All residents were invited. This shows that the landlord was committed to understanding the social conflict on the estate. Such an approach would have allowed it to gather intelligence and evidence, so it could act accordingly. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
Following these one to one meetings, and in an attempt to gather independent evidence itself, the landlord said that it would arrange estate patrols and would carry out unannounced site inspections. While it is unclear from the evidence seen if this was arranged, it is not disputed that this happened. The landlord also wrote a general letter to all resident’s setting out its expectations regarding behaviour, and warning of its intention to use CCTV to identify those responsible should incidents continue to be reported. This showed that the landlord was trying to set firm boundaries for its residents and encourage behavioural change. This was appropriate and was in line with its ASB policy. However, in view of its level of engagement with the wider estate, the landlord might also have explored the use of a community or good neighbour agreement. This would have served to reinforce expected behaviours and may have promoted a shared commitment from all its residents regarding neighbour relations.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reoffered mediation and offered to arrange a meeting between the resident and a senior member of staff. It explained the steps that its ASB team would be taking, which included arranging a partnership meeting to discuss how ongoing issues might best be resolved. From the evidence seen, it has not been possible to determine based on fact if this partnership meeting was progressed, or the outcomes from such a meeting. While there is no reason to believe that this did not happen, it is inappropriate for there to be no records on this.
The landlord also stated it would consider the resident’s recorded evidence of an interaction with the staff member. There is no evidence this was provided. The evidence suggests the resident had intended to provide a transcript via her solicitor, but the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest it did this.
As the landlord stated in its stage two response that it would respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint once it had received and assessed the transcript of the recording and there is no evidence this was provided by the resident, this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not yet exhausted the landlord’s procedure. The resident should provide this evidence to the landlord, who should then assess it and provide a further compliant response.
Mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the alleged abuse that the resident was reporting from her neighbours, the landlord would have been expected to consider whether the resident was able to protect herself against potential abuse. If the landlord did not consider that the resident could protect herself as a result of care and support needs, the landlord would be expected to work with partners, to stop the risk and protect the resident’s wellbeing. The resident told the Ombudsman that she did not feel that the landlord had done enough to safeguard her from abuse from her neighbours.
The Ombudsman has seen an internal document from November 2021, which states that it was “aware of the resident’s support needs”. The document indicated that the landlord was in contact with the resident’s floating support team and the police, to ensure that any safeguarding concerns were being met. This was also mentioned in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The document also mentions that Adult Social Care had raised “a safeguarding”, but this was not progressed as the resident was deemed not to have “eligible care and support needs”. Again, the Ombudsman has not been able to determine based on fact from the evidence seen, the outcome of such discussions or the action that the landlord took in response. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of a later referral to mental health services in May 2022, following a letter received from the resident expressing suicidal ideation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this evidence supports a view that the landlord was taking steps, in conjunction with partners, to identify and respond to the resident’s safeguarding needs as appropriate.
The Ombudsman makes some general observations about the landlord’s management of this ASB case. The evidence suggests that at the beginning, both the landlord’s housing management and ASB teams were in communication with the resident and her neighbours. It is unclear to the Ombudsman if these teams were always working together or if they were working independently of each other. It is the Ombudsman’s view, that the simultaneous handling of ASB related matters by both teams would have been confusing for the resident and was likely to have afforded an inadequate level of oversight over the wider situation. Where there is crossover between job roles and cases, it is important that landlords have robust processes in place which are then followed, to avoid confusion and to ensure consistency. The division of responsibilities between the 2 teams was unclear from the landlord’s ASB policy that was in operation at the time. Since accountability for ASB fell to its housing management team, the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence of regular meetings between the 2 teams, sharing updates, and that it was keeping the case under joint review. If this was happening, it has not been clearly evidenced.
Several months after the landlord’s complaint process completed, it agreed that all future reports of ASB from the resident, would be handled by its ASB team. The ASB case notes state that this was agreed to “ensure that housing management allow us to get on with our investigations”. It was further agreed that housing management would not actively correspond with any resident, but would pass their communications onto its ASB team, to ensure that that its investigations remained “consistent” and “impartial”. The Ombudsman suggests that given the historical and ongoing complaints made about staff in its housing management team, this was a sensible decision. But these comments suggest that there were concerns internally, over a lack of joined up thinking in relation to the management of conflict on the estate. The landlord’s failure to recognise this at an earlier stage, may have delayed the landlord’s efforts to bring about a timelier resolution.
The Ombudsman has also noticed, an absence of incident diaries related to this case. There is no mention of any incident diaries being issued to the resident. Although its ASB policy does not specifically refer to the use of incident diaries, the Ombudsman suggests that this is unusual. Keeping an incident diary can be extremely useful to landlords when handling ASB cases, since they can show how often a behaviour is happening and how it is affecting the resident. They allow the landlord to spot patterns of behaviour and cross reference evidence, which in turn can help inform an effective response.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with copies of pages from her own personal diary, in which she had jotted down ASB incidents over several years. It is unclear to the Ombudsman whether the landlord was aware of this diary prior to completion of its internal complaint process. The resident states that her diary was offered to the landlord in August 2022, but it refused to consider the evidence. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify this.
The landlord and resident have both provided evidence which predates and extends beyond the stage 2 response. This includes video evidence provided by the resident to demonstrate the behaviour of her neighbours. This includes footage of potatoes thrown at the resident’s front door and rubbish being tipped on her doorstep. The Ombudsman does not underestimate this was a challenging case for the landlord to manage, not least complicated by the prolonged conflict between the resident and her neighbours. However, the effects of perceived ongoing, persistent, distressing ASB cannot be overstated. It is likely that the resident acutely felt the cumulative impact of this, in view of her vulnerabilities.
It is also apparent that other residents were being drawn into the ongoing conflict, as they sought to defend the resident. In view of the impact upon the resident and upon the wider estate, the landlord ought to have considered following through on its written warning and installed CCTV, in an attempt to obtain unequivocal evidence. There is no evidence that this was progressed. Doing so might have reassured the resident and was likely to have sent a strong message to the whole estate. The landlord might also have considered using a professional witness, which may have been a proportionate response in view of the time invested in trying to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s continued efforts to bring about a resolution to ongoing neighbour conflicts. This includes visiting and interviewing the resident and other parties, liaising with the resident’s advocacy support, a referral for tenancy sustainment support, a request for multi-partnership working, and warning letters to residents. However, it is understood that the resident was often reluctant to allow the landlord to contact her neighbours, concerned that this may antagonise the situation. While the resident’s position was understandable, this would have restricted the landlord’s ability to progress matters.
Despite the landlord’s past interventions, the resident has told the Ombudsman that she continues to experience difficulties with her neighbours. It is understood that fresh attempts by the landlord to arrange mediation have failed, due to lack of engagement by her neighbours. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord ought to consider taking some decisive action to bring about a long-term solution in this matter. Given that the resident has expressly stated that her preferred resolution is to move, the landlord may wish to consider how it may be able to assist the resident with this.
In summary, the evidence suggests that the landlord was generally handling the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy, although the landlord did not always provide corroborating evidence of its actions. The resident’s reluctance to allow the landlord to raise concerns with her neighbours, while understandable, will have restricted its ability to investigate and take robust action where necessary. However, the Ombudsman has identified some missed opportunities and some areas where the landlord could have managed the resident’s reports more effectively. When considered cumulatively, these failings were likely to have contributed to the resident’s overall disappointment and loss of confidence. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB and harassment from neighbours.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.

In the resident’s opinion, the housing officer was bullying and targeting the resident because she had disabilities. It is understood that the resident had made several complaints about the housing officer in the past, which had not been upheld.
In coming to a view about whether the landlord’s decision not to uphold the resident’s complaint was reasonable, the Ombudsman has considered where necessary, whether the housing officer was following the landlord’s policies and whether their actions were reasonable in the circumstances. To satisfy the specific points raised by the resident, subheadings have been used to provide clarity.

Removal of CCTV

It is understandable that the resident might be unhappy about being asked to remove a personal CCTV device from her door, installed for her own protection. However, it is understood that the landlord had made its position on CCTV clear to the resident previously. The landlord’s position on CCTV cameras was not uncommon within the sector. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had departed from her expected duties.

Request to keep dogs on leads

The landlord has stated that its policy requires all dogs to be on leads in communal spaces. Although the Ombudsman has not had sight of the landlord’s policy on this, this would be the usual approach for landlords. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the housing officer to have insisted that all dogs be placed on leads. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had departed from her expected duties.

The housing officer revealed the identity of the resident to an alleged perpetrator

After the landlord interviewed the housing officer, it was satisfied that the resident’s identity was kept private and confidential. Although the housing officer may not have revealed the resident’s identity, there is always a danger that an alleged perpetrator will be able to make an educated guess about this, from the nature of a complaint. This reinforces the importance of risk assessing every report of nuisance received and agreeing next steps with a resident before the landlord meets an alleged perpetrator. While it is unclear from the evidence if this happened, there is no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had broken the resident’s confidentiality.

Allegations that the housing officer said they were targeting the resident

The landlord committed to listening to a recording, which the resident claimed evidenced that the housing officer was targeting her. However, after the resident provided this, the landlord said that it could not easily hear what was said in the recording. Although the resident said that she would provide a transcript of the recording, there is no evidence that this was sent to the landlord. The landlord also investigated the resident’s claims that the housing officer was working with one of the neighbours against her, but it said it could find no evidence that this was the case. It is understandable that the landlord would not be able to act upon these allegations without further evidence.

The housing officer accused the resident of damaging her car

The landlord also reviewed the resident’s claims that the housing officer had accused the resident of damaging her car. It is understood that this was a historical matter, but the resident was not disadvantaged by the landlord revisiting this. After reinterviewing the housing officer, the landlord remained satisfied that its housing officer had not accused the resident of this. The landlord clarified that the housing officer had asked several residents if they had seen her car being scratched. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, it was understandable that the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about this.

The housing officer investigated complaints about themselves

It is usual practice for a landlord to interview staff who have had prior involvement in a case, as part of its complaint handling investigation. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the housing officer investigated complaints about themselves.
It is understandable that the resident may have questioned the housing officer’s motivations in view of the number of compliance requests the housing officer had issued to the resident over the period of time. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the housing officer’s actions were in accordance with the landlord’s policies. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the housing officer’s conduct was out of the ordinary. In regard to the resident’s future contact with its housing management team, in view of the evident breakdown in trust, the landlord acted reasonably by putting alternative contact arrangements in place.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was able to provide records of contact with the landlord, which the landlord had not provided itself as part of its evidence. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify if its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. In internal communications from 19 November 2021, the landlord states that the resident was in contact with it on an almost daily basis concerning the ongoing investigation, however this is not reflected in the evidence. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to reports about disrepair.
2. The landlord’s response to safeguarding concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a subject data access request, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 41d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the local housing authority’s response to a court order concerning rehousing, following a suitability review, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour and harassment.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the following aspect was ruled to be outside the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, as there is no evidence the resident’s complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £200 directly to the resident, in recognition of the distress, delay, time and trouble caused to the resident, in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour and harassment. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must endeavour to meet with the resident and her advocate, to discuss any outstanding issues with ASB. Where a meeting does take place (this must be carried out within a reasonable period), the landlord must carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident, making clear who will do what and by when.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must:
1. Carry out a review of its existing oversight processes in relation to the management of ASB cases by the landlord’s ASB team, on behalf of its housing management team who holds overall accountability.
2. Review its record keeping and information management in this case to identify learnings. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

As the resident has expressed a desire to relocate to alternative accommodation, the landlord should consider offering to meet with the resident to discuss her longer-term housing need.

The landlord should consider how it handles requests for information from the Ombudsman and how it satisfies itself that any information it provides adequately evide