Peabody Trust (202207126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207126

Peabody Trust

26 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its administration of his tenancy, including his rent account.
2. The level of service provided to the resident by the landlord’s customer service hub.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident was a joint tenant holding an assured tenancy of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2019.
The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

On 26 May 2022 the resident completed an online report form. It set out his dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s role in rehousing his ex-partner following a relationship breakdown. He said the situation was having a detrimental impact on his health and he was feeling vulnerable. He also said he had a log of phone calls and emails which the landlord had not acknowledged.
On 30 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had raised a complaint which would be dealt with informally, in line with its complaints policy.
On 13 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask who was dealing with his complaint.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord identified that the resident’s ex-partner had 2 live tenancies. It emailed the resident on the same day to discuss a sole tenancy request. The resident was concerned that he could not afford the tenancy on his own. The landlord offered to refer him to its welfare benefits team however, the resident advised he could apply himself. He declined to talk to its collections team to discuss a rent payment plan. He advised that he did not wish to sign a sole tenancy for the property and wanted to downsize.
An internal email dated 13 June 2022 confirmed that the resident’s ex-partner had the right to end the joint tenancy. If he did so, it would decide if the resident could remain in the property. It said that if the resident refused to sign the paperwork it would seek further advice.
On 21 June 2022 the resident completed an online contact form to ask for a response to the complaint he raised on 26 May. He said he had not been able to contact the officer dealing with his complaint. He said he was becoming increasingly “emotional and frustrated” trying to resolve his issues through its service hub. He said that he wanted to sign a sole tenancy at a new property.
The resident said he had been given access to the ‘homehunt’ website but his application remained at ‘pre-live’ status. He had been told housing options would contact him about downsizing but he had not heard anything. When his ex-partner moved out he contacted Universal Credit (UC) to update that he was solely responsible for the rent but the landlord had failed to confirm this. His ex-partner had not collected all of his belongings from the property.
Also on 23 June 2022 an internal email confirmed that because the tenancy was a joint tenancy UC would only pay half of the rent, anticipating that the other tenant would pay the rest. UC would only pay the full rent if it was a sole tenancy. It noted bedroom tax would be applied because the resident was under occupying by 1 bedroom.
On 30 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response, including contact from the housing options team. He requested that his complaint be escalated.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for its lack of response and said this was because the officer dealing with his case had changed. It explained that the tenancy was still a joint tenancy and this was what was causing issues with his UC. It said that when he vacated the property it would follow up on any items that the resident stated did not belong to him.
On 1 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask why it had still not confirmed his rent to UC and why the rehousing team had not yet contacted him. He said he was suffering the long term side effects of radiotherapy and was feeling stressed and depressed as a result of his situation.
On 6 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint, the main points were as follows:
1. It had failed to provide the correct information regarding his rent to UC which had caused him financial hardship.
2. He believed it was discriminating against him due to false allegations of domestic abuse and drug addiction by his ex-partner.
3. He asked it to reduce the rent because he could not use the second bedroom and balcony due to it being full of his ex-partner’s possessions.
4. He asked it to pay compensation for the detrimental impact caused by its discrimination and false allegations of domestic abuse.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident its stage 1 complaint response in an email, as follows:
1. His request to remove his ex-partner from the tenancy was being progressed by its rehousing team.
2. It understood that there was a previous domestic abuse case in which his ex-partner reported that he was the perpetrator. His ex-partner was therefore moved and he remained in the property.
3. It asked the resident to speak to its collection team to agree a rent arrears payment plan. It confirmed it could refer him for welfare benefit advice regarding his UC.
On 6 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to reply to its stage 1 complaint response. He denied being a perpetrator of domestic abuse as alleged by his ex-partner and said it was he who was the victim of abuse. He reiterated his concerns about his UC claim and his request for a rent reduction.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord replied to the resident to reiterate its offer to refer him for benefits welfare advice. It apologised if the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of its investigation. and confirmed it could not divulge any information about his ex-partner.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say that his sole tenancy request had been approved. It proposed arrangements for signing the deed of assignment. The resident replied on the same day, 8 July, to say he was seeking legal advice about his situation. In the meantime, he would not sign a new sole tenancy.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord sent an internal email to its legal team to seek advice on how it should proceed given that the resident had declined to sign the sole tenancy paperwork.
On 12 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as follows:
1. Its call centre had recently told him his complaint was closed and marked as resolved.
2. The stress and anxiety caused by the situation was aggravating the long term side effects of his radiotherapy treatment for cancer.
3. It had discriminated against him based on a false accusation of domestic abuse by his ex-partner.
4. He did not accept that data protection laws were sufficient reason not to provide the information he requested about the allegations of abuse.
5. It was forcing the sole tenancy of a 2 bedroom property on him which was causing financial implications for him.
6. It had taken 6 weeks to confirm the correct rent to UC who were deducting £103 for bedroom tax.
7. He reiterated his request for a reduction in rent.
8. He was not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of his stage 1 complaint.
9. On numerous occasions staff had been rude and had not addressed the points he had raised.
10. The stress and anxiety caused over the past 6 weeks was impacting on his health.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. It said it would provide a response within 15 working days.
An internal email, dated 4 August 2022, described a call from the resident who was described as being “very distressed” because he believed it had not completed the verification check regarding his rent. The landlord advised that it had completed the check and confirmed the date this took place. It advised the resident to ask UC to complete another verification check.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. The update it provided to UC reflected the information recorded on its system that showed there was a joint tenancy because the resident declined to sign a new sole tenancy. It had since contacted UC to explain the situation.
2. It apologised that he felt that staff managing his calls were rude, referred to him by another name and did not have any empathy when speaking with him. It said it would refer this back to the manager for review. It also intended to remind staff to be mindful and courteous when communicating with residents and managing expectations.
3. It was unable to enforce that his ex-partner remove his belongings from the property.
4. It was unable to disclose what communications it had with his ex-partner as this fell within the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) guidelines on data protection.
5. The resident was registered on the homehunt portal but it was showing a ‘pre-live status’ and he could not use it. His account had been activated to enable him to log on and bid for any suitable properties that may become available.
6. It had also asked for his banding to be reviewed to reflect that he wanted to downsize to a 1 bedroom property. It also signposted him to the mutual exchange scheme.
7. It had reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and concluded that it could have shown more “investigative principles to conclude its outcome.” It also acknowledged that it did not tell the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied. It intended to review the complaints procedure to ensure future responses were compliant.
8. Having considered the complaint handling element it offered £100 for the delayed response and lack of resolution based principles when investigating the complaint. It also offered £50 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience taken to pursue the issue about downsizing.
On 5 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he remained dissatisfied that it would not provide details of the alleged domestic abuse. He reiterated his concerns about his UC claim and his request for a rent reduction. He did not feel that the level of compensation reflected the effect the situation had had on his physical and mental health. He had been phoning trying to get through, only to be cut off. He had been put through to departments that could not deal with his enquiry and had been told by a call handler that he could not escalate his complaint.

On 17 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of his emails in relation to its stage 2 complaint response. It said it would provide a response by 19 August.
The landlord’s legal team sent an internal email on 8 September 2022 to confirm that if the ex-partner did not end the tenancy then “there was not much it could do.” The only option was for the ex-partner to serve ‘notice to quit’ to end the joint tenancy. It said it could consider inviting the ex-partner to do so.
On 16 September 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint ‘follow on’ response in an email, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay, and the investigating officer advised they had been extremely busy and had been out of the office.
2. It was unable to provide information in relation to the resident’s ex-partner’s move due to data protection laws.
3. The resident’s banding had been raised to B3 from band D, giving him a higher status when bidding for properties on the homehunt portal. He could also search for a mutual exchange. It was not able to provide a 1 bedroom property straight away as “rehousing protocols had to be adhered to.”
4. The matter of his ex-partner’s belongings was a matter between the resident and him. It confirmed that the rent would therefore remain the same.
5. Its rehousing team had engaged with him to start the process of changing his tenancy from joint to sole and he should contact them if he wished to progress this.
6. It apologised that he felt the level of compensation was insulting, and that it had an impact on his wellbeing.
7. In light of his comments about his difficulties contacting the landlord it had reviewed the element of compensation for time and trouble and complaint handling.
8. If the resident wanted to pursue compensation for the impact on his wellbeing he should consider raising a personal injury claim. It signposted him to its insurance team.
9. It was sorry that the service he received when engaging with the customer hub was not at the level expected. It said it would identify lessons learnt.
10. It revised its offer of compensation as follows:
  1. £150 for its complaint handling, including the delayed response, lack of resolution-based principles when investigating the complaint, and the delay in providing its follow on response.
  2. £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience taken to pursue the matter.
On 22 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction at its stage 2 complaint follow on response.

Events post internal complaints process

On 21 November 2022 the landlord’s legal team sent an internal email to confirm there was no legal basis for the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
On 23 November 2022 the resident’s ex-partner signed an ‘ending your tenancy form’ which was backdated to show the tenancy end date as 17 May 2022.
On 8 December 2022 the resident contacted this Service to request that we investigate his complaint about the landlord’s failure to carry out affordability checks. He felt this should have been carried out when requesting he sign a new tenancy agreement of a 2 bedroom property. He was also dissatisfied that it refused to reduce the rent while he looked for a smaller property.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him that the tenancy was in his sole name following his ex-partner’s departure from the property on 17 May 2022.
On 30 January 2024 the landlord emailed this Service to confirm that it carried out the UC verification check on 26 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must “pay the rent and other charges in advance.”
The landlord’s rent collection procedure says that any resident who is unable to pay the rent in one payment will be able to make these payments by setting up an arrangement. It also says that it can refer residents to its welfare benefits and money advice team for support.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses will be issued within 20 working days of the request being received.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that when considering:
1. General compensation it will consider a resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, as follows:
  1. Minor disruption – £1-£200 low impact and/or low effort to resolve.
  2. Moderate disruption – £201-£400 low impact/high effort or high impact but low to resolve.
  3. Extensive disruption – £401-£600 high impact and high effort to resolve and/or extended time to complete actions and failure to communicate or follow procedure.
2. When considering a complaint it will consider whether it had followed its complaints policy. If a failure is identified it will pay compensation, as follows:
  1. Minor failure – £1-£50 for low level impact.
  2. Moderate failure – £51-£150 for inconvenience and effort to progress.
  3. Severe failure – £151-£250 extensive failure causing a significant impact on the complainant.

Scope of the investigation

This Service has received emails sent by the resident to the landlord during March and May 2023. They describe the resident’s dissatisfaction about the landlord’s conduct, including allegations of harassment. This investigation is not able to assess the landlord’s response to new complaints made after the internal complaints process was exhausted on 16 September 2022. Therefore, the resident may wish to raise a further formal complaint to resolve these issues. He can contact this Service for further advice if he needs support with the process (telephone 0300 111 3000 or email info@jhousing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The resident has also said that the landlord’s actions have impacted on his physical and mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. It is not known if the resident has made a personal injury claim as suggested by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response of 16 July 2022. If he has not done so already, the resident may wish to contact the landlord’s insurance team using the details provided to him.
The resident has made referred to a request for the landlord to reduce the level of rent he is paying. This investigation is unable to investigate complaints about the setting of rent in accordance with paragraph 42 the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. The scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Administration of tenancy, including rent account

The landlord was not responsible for the unfortunate breakdown of the relationship between the resident and his ex-partner. The ex-partner’s intention to leave the property was a matter between him and the resident.
It follows that the landlord was not responsible for the outgoing tenant leaving his belongings behind in the property. Its position in its stage 2 complaint response of 16 June 2022 in relation to their removal and the reduction in rent was therefore reasonable. Furthermore, on 1 July 2022 the landlord reassured the resident that when he vacated the property he would not be responsible for any items which he said did not belong to him.
That the landlord offered the resident’s ex-partner an alternative property was a matter between the landlord and the outgoing tenant. Given the circumstances, and GDPR, it was appropriate that it did not discuss the situation with the resident.
This investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord accused the resident of being a perpetrator of domestic abuse or that it discriminated against him because of the allegation. For example, in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 July 2022 the landlord referred to a previous domestic abuse case in which his partner reported that he was the perpetrator, it did not say that he was.
However, as acknowledged in the landlord’s internal email of 8 September 2022 the landlord failed to administer the change of tenancy correctly at the time the outgoing tenant left the property. This was inappropriate because it left what it referred to as an ‘untidy tenancy’, causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. This was because he had to make efforts to ensure UC understood that he was solely liable for the rent despite being a joint tenant.
The landlord sought to rectify its oversight by asking the resident to sign a sole tenancy on 13 June 2022, 3 weeks after the outgoing tenant left. This would have restored the resident to the position he would have been in were it not for its failure. The resident declined to sign the paperwork which unfortunately meant that the difficulties were ongoing.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022, the landlord explained that it had to verify that there was a joint tenancy because this reflected the facts of the case. It also confirmed that it appropriately contacted UC to explain the situation. It confirmed that the verification was submitted on 26 June 2022, just under 5 weeks after the outgoing tenant left.
The resident declined to sign a sole tenancy of his current property and said he would do so if he were moved somewhere smaller. In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had activated his HomeHunt account to enable him to bid. It also acted appropriately in agreeing to review the resident’s banding. However, it acknowledged that it had delayed in doing so, causing time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. It offered £50 compensation for the detriment caused by its failure.
The breakdown of the relationship impacted on the resident’s financial situation because he was unable to afford the rent on a 2 bedroom property. This investigation sympathises with the resident for the distress this caused. However, the landlord was not responsible for the breakdown and was not obliged to provide alternative accommodation at a more affordable rent.
In line with its rent collections policy the landlord was obliged to support the resident with his financial difficulties. On 13 June and 6 July 2022 the landlord appropriately advised the resident to speak with its collections team to arrange a payment plan. It also offered to refer him to its welfare benefits and money advice team.
As a result of the relationship breakdown and the ex-partner moving out, UC applied a bedroom tax charge to the rent account. This was not as the result of a failure by the landlord but as a consequence of a change in the resident’s personal circumstances. The landlord was not responsible for the situation which resulted in the charge being applied. It was therefore not obliged to provide any kind of financial relief as a result.
The landlord failed to administer the change in tenancy at the point at which the outgoing tenant moved out which left the resident with an ‘untidy tenancy’. This was a service failure which caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. Taking into account the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 in addition to the £50 it has already offered.

Customer care

On 26 May 2022 the resident completed an online report form to complain that he had a log of phone calls and emails which the landlord had not acknowledged. The landlord failed to provide a response causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble by chasing the landlord on 21 June. He described the emotional distress and frustration caused to him by its ongoing lack of communication. On 1 July the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for its lack of response and provided updates as appropriate.
On 12 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that on numerous occasions staff had been rude, had not addressed the points he had raised and had given him incorrect information. He set out the difficulties he had encountered trying to speak to someone by phone. This was unreasonable because it had caused him distress and frustration. Furthermore, it undermined the landlord and resident relationship because he was not able to access a service.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022 the landlord appropriately apologised for the issues the resident had experienced with the customer service hub. Although it did not specifically explain what had gone wrong it did appropriately set out what it would do to prevent a recurrence.
In its follow on email dated 16 September 2022 the landlord addressed the resident’s comments about his difficulties in making contact. It apologised for the service he had received when engaging with its customer hub. It said this was not at the level it expected and offered £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The £100 was an increase in compensation of the £50 offered in its stage 1 response for time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing his transfer application to downsize. Therefore, given the context, it is reasonable to conclude that £50 was awarded as redress for the difficulties experienced by the resident when trying to contact the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer up to £200 for minor disruption. Its offer of £50 compensation did not reflect the fact that there was a repeated failure and did not fully reflect the distress caused to the resident. In recognition of this, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation. It may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint handling

On 26 May 2022 the resident completed an online report form to log a complaint. The landlord’s response of 30 May 2022 confirmed that it had raised a complaint which would be dealt with informally, in line with its complaints policy. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at that time refers to an initial complaint stage known as an expression of dissatisfaction. This stage has been removed from subsequent complaint policies so that the landlord operates a 2 stage process, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code).
However, the landlord failed to provide a response which was unreasonable. This is because it caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when he had to email the landlord to chase on 13, 21 and 30 June 2022. Due to a lack of response the resident emailed the landlord again on 6 July 2022 to formally request to raise a complaint.
Section 2.1 of the Code says that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain. Section 3.3 says that effective complaint handling skills are one of the most important factors in ensuring that complaint handling works well. The resident contacted the landlord in writing on 4 occasions to try to get a response to his complaint. This was inappropriate, causing distress and frustration.
Section 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 6 July 2022 lacked depth and did not demonstrate that it had fully understood the points raised by the resident. Both the speed with which it provided its response and the fact that it did not fully address the resident’s complaint shows that it did not undertake a thorough investigation. This was inappropriate because the resident could not have confidence that the landlord took his complaint seriously.
Section 5.8 of the Code says that a stage 1 complaint response must provide details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident remains dissatisfied. The landlord did not comply with this requirement and therefore the resident was not appropriately signposted on next steps which was a further failure.
In his stage 2 complaint of 12 July 2022 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his stage 1 complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022 the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the complaint handling failures in its stage 1 complaint response. It also identified lessons learnt and set out what it would do to prevent a reoccurrence. However, it failed to recognise the difficulties experienced by the resident in trying to raise his complaint between 26 May and 6 July. It therefore also failed to consider the detriment caused.
It only considered compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in the stage 1 response, and did not review the events that preceded it. Taking this into account the detriment caused to the resident increased because of the cumulative failures. It would have been reasonable for this to be reflected in the compensation.
In the landlord’s email to the resident of 17 August 2022 it said it would respond to his ongoing concerns by 19 August. However, it provided its response on 16 September, 22 days later.
The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay however, its explanation was inappropriate. This was because it suggested that providing a response to the resident was not a priority which undermined the resident and landlord relationship. The landlord did take steps to put things right by increasing the compensation for complaint handling by £50. The increase was consistent with its compensation policy for minor failure.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures and associated compensation is set out below:
1. Failure to raise stage 1 complaint from 26 May to 6 July – no compensation.
2. Failures with stage 1 complaint response – £100.
3. Delay in issuing stage 2 follow up response – £50.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. There were a series of failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord acknowledged some of the failings and took steps to put things right. However, it did not recognise the cumulative failings and the detriment caused, including distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
Taking into account the landlord’s compensation policy in relation to ‘severe failure’ and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its administration of his tenancy, including his rent account
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the level of service provided to the resident by the landlord’s customer service hub.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to administer the tenancy correctly at the point at which the resident’s ex-partner was moved to another property.
The resident reported that staff in the landlord’s customer service hub were rude and unhelpful. They had referred to him by the wrong name and provided inaccurate information. When he tried to phone his calls were sometimes cut off.
The resident had to make a significant efforts in order for the landlord to raise a formal complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response lacked depth and failed to signpost the resident should he wish to escalate his complaint. The stage 2 follow on response was delayed and the explanation provided was inappropriate.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, as follows:
1. £150 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s failure to administer the tenancy correctly.
2. £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience time and trouble caused by the failure in the service provided by the landlord’s service hub. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has already offered if this has been paid.
3. £350 for distress, time and trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. It may deduct the £150 it has already offered if this has been paid.
Also within 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report, setting out its learning from the complaint. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord should review its approach to compensation against the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The date and outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the report against the recently published Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report in Attitudes, Respect and Rights.