Southern Housing (201911202)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911202

Southern Housing (now Southern Housing Group)

25 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 response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about parking.
2. A property transfer request.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service cannot make findings on rehousing decisions made by a local authority. Such matters fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The resident’s tenancy began in December 2014 and the property is a 2 bedroom, 3rd floor flat within a block.
In December 2022, the landlord completed a merger with Optivo and is now known as Southern Housing Group.
The landlord’s policies and procedures referred to within this report were correct during the timescales outlined within the case and all events took place prior to the landlord’s merger.

Scope of investigation

During the timescales considered within this report, the resident has made a number of separate complaints to the landlord and this Service. Some of these matters have already been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, however some have not exhausted its complaints process. The table below provides further clarity.

Complaint topic	Stage one response	Stage two response
Parking permit	29 May 2019	21 Sept 2021
Damage caused to resident’s car	29 May 2019	2 Aug 2019, 21 Sept 2021
Request to view CCTV (damage to car)	29 May 2019	internal complaints process incomplete
Faulty door intercom	29 May 2019, 13 Mar 2020	internal complaints process incomplete
Pest control (ants)	29 May 2019, 13 Mar 2020	internal complaints process incomplete
Noise nuisance	29 May 2019, 13 Nov 2020	21 Sept 2021
Caretaking service	13 Mar 2020	internal complaints process incomplete
Service charge refund	13 Mar 2020	internal complaints process incomplete
Washing machine backing up	13 Nov 2020	internal complaints process incomplete
Lack of support	24 Jun 2021	internal complaints process incomplete
Rehousing request	24 Jun 2021	29 Oct 2021
CCTV not working for 14 months	Not considered at stage one	internal complaints process incomplete
Repair to front entrance door	Not considered at stage one	internal complaints process incomplete

For matters which have not fully exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident may wish to refer these back to the landlord for it to investigate and respond accordingly.
This Service made determinations in a previous report (reference 201513338) dated 9 November 2018 which considered the landlord’s response following complaints from the resident relating to;
1. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour.
2. Requests for repairs to the main entrance door intercom system.
3. A formal complaint in relation to these matters.
As these matters have already been determined by this Service they are unable to be reconsidered and are not within the scope of this report.

Summary of events

On 4 May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord, making a formal complaint about a variety of issues. One particular issue was her unhappiness with the landlord’s refusal to provide her with a parking permit.
On 29 May 2019, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response. It covered the other issues raised by the resident, but in relation to her parking permit request it stated:
1. It had previously responded to this request in a letter dated 8 November 2018.
2. It confirmed that parking was limited on the estate and that it operated resident’s parking on a waiting list.
3. A parking space usually becomes available if a resident gives up their space or leaves the property, however this is very rare.
4. It would usually offer an available parking space to the next resident on the waiting list but, any rent arrears would need to be cleared before the space is formally offered.
5. It stated that visitor’s parking permits are not for resident’s to use when parking on the estate.
6. It referred the resident to the local authority who may be able to provide a resident’s parking permit for on-street parking.
7. With regards to the above points, it confirmed it was unable to provide her with a parking permit.
On 3 March 2020, in relation to separate complaints raised by the resident, the landlord stated in an email acknowledging her complaints, that it would not consider her parking permit request in that response. It stated that it believed this element of her complaint had been considered in an earlier compensation review which was the final stage of its complaints procedure. It advised the resident to contact this Service regarding that specific element of her complaint.
On 2 April 2020, in an email sent this Service by the resident, she outlined that the landlord had provided her with a parking permit and then advised her that she had to return it as it had been incorrectly provided to her. She stated that the parking space was still allocated to another resident in the block. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s procedures when providing parking permits.
On 23 August 2020, within an email sent to this Service, the resident stated that she had received a warning from the landlord about parking her vehicle on the estate. She stated that she found this intimidating as other resident’s had not received similar letters from the landlord. She further stated that when she had complained about being issued a parking permit which the landlord then revoked, she had not received a reply despite being told it was being looked into.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent an email to the resident on 11 November 2020, in which it stated that it could not find any records of her parking complaint being investigated at stage one of its complaints process. It advised the resident that it would be able to investigate this.
On 16 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had been the victim of a serious domestic incident at the property, caused by her ex-partner. She reported that damage had been caused to her property and she had informed the police. She asked the landlord to contact her urgently to discuss rehousing options.
The landlord called the resident back that same day and its records show that it advised her to contact the local authority to discuss immediate emergency accommodation. The member of staff asked the resident to pass on his number so that the local authority could contact him directly to validate the resident’s account. The resident contacted the local authority and was rehoused into temporary accommodation. The landlord provided supporting evidence to the local authority to support the resident’s position.
The landlord’s records show that on 30 March 2021 it tried to contact the resident three times via telephone to discuss how it could assist her with permanent rehousing options. Messages were left for the resident to call back and the landlord further advised that it could signpost her to relevant support agencies.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord completed a priority move request form in which it agreed that the resident met the criteria for permanent rehousing under its priority move policy. Its records state that the resident was unwilling to consider other locations where it had housing stock. The landlord’s records state that an officer called the resident on 25 May 2021 and explained its position. The officer also confirmed that they would refer her to its financial inclusion officer so that she could get help in applying for a discretionary housing payment to assist in covering rent arrears which had built up during the time she was in temporary accommodation.
On 26 May 2021, following a panel review the landlord confirmed in writing its position with regards to her priority move application. It stated that it agreed that her circumstances met the criteria for permanent rehousing under its priority move policy. It further stated however, that as she was unwilling to consider other locations where it had housing stock, it would not agree to her joining its priority move list. It stated that due to the very low availability of homes in the specific areas she wished to be rehoused in, this was not a viable option for someone needing to move urgently. It asked the resident to consider the other locations where it had housing stock and for her to reply by 30 June 2021. If she did not reply or confirm other areas she would consider, it would be unable to add her to its priority moves list and she would need to make a new rehousing application. Within the letter, the landlord provided the resident with advice to contact the local authority to join their housing register. It also outlined the appeals process should she be unhappy with its response to her rehousing request.
On 3 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in which she stated:
1. She felt that the landlord had neglected her and not supported her since the start of her tenancy.
2. She was unhappy with being placed in temporary accommodation some distance from her family network.
3. She was unhappy that the landlord had asked her to look at rehousing options herself, she felt that the landlord’s housing officer should have been doing this for her.
4. She confirmed that she would only consider being rehoused in the borough were her property was located.
On 17 June 2021, during a telephone call with this Service, the resident advised that she had not received a response from the landlord. She stated that she had a new email address and it was agreed that this Service would contact the landlord to chase its stage one complaint response on the resident’s behalf and her new email address would be provided to it. This Service later wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the landlord which it sent to her old email address. It is understood that the resident did therefore not receive this response at that time. This response related to the resident’s rehousing complaint and stated the following:
1. It apologised to the resident if she felt unsupported.
2. It stated that it would usually only consider matters and issued which had occurred within the past six months and was not able to review the support provided to her during the entire tenancy.
3. It had discussed her case at its priority move panel and agreed that her circumstances met the criteria for permanent rehousing.
4. It could not however add her to its priority move list unless she was willing to consider other locations where it held housing stock.
5. It stated that it had advised her to contact the local authority in her areas of choice to explore joining their rehousing lists.
6. It asked the resident to provide it with a list of areas she would consider being rehoused to by 30 June 2021.
7. It stated that it was unable to change the decision made regarding a move and would be closing her complaint.
8. It outlined how she could request an escalation to stage two of its complaint process if she was unhappy with its response.
This Service contacted the landlord on 1 July 2021 and chased the landlord for its stage one response on the resident’s behalf and provided the resident’s new email address.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord contacted this Service and stated that it was in contact with the resident but it held on its records a different email address to the one which had been provided. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was currently at stage one of its complaints process. Also on 2 July the landlord contacted the resident via her new email address and asked her to confirm her old email address and her current property address. The resident responded to the landlord’s email that same day, providing the requested information.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident in which it forwarded the email sent to it by this Service on 2 July 2021. The resident responded and explained that it had not made any reference to her complaint regarding a parking permit. The resident also referred to other issues which are not considered within the scope of this report.
The resident contacted the landlord via telephone on 19 July 2021 and stated that she had not received its stage one complaint response. The landlord advised her that it had sent it to her via email on 24 June 2021. The resident advised it had been sent to her old email address which had been hacked and was no longer in use. She asked the landlord to resend it to her new email address, which it did on 23 July 2021.
On 28 July 2021, having now received the landlord’s stage one complaint response dated 24 June 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord. She referred to matters which occurred in 2019 and 2020 which she stated were not covered in its stage one complaint response.
The resident submitted a further formal complaint to the landlord on 16 August 2021. She stated that her complaint was still unresolved and was unhappy that it had not updated its records with her new email address. She stated that this caused a delay in receiving its stage one complaint response.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord sent the resident a form to complete so that it could register her new email address on its systems.
On 14 September 2021, this Service contacted the landlord and requested that it provided the resident with a stage two complaint response by 21 September 2021. The resident also chased the landlord for its response in an email she sent on 15 September 2021.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 20 September 2021 and apologised for its delay in responding to her. It confirmed that her complaint regarding rehousing was at stage two of its complaints process and would be considered by a senior manager. It stated that it would provide its stage two complaint response by 15 October 2021.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response which related to her parking permit complaint and other matters not considered within the scope of this report. The response stated the following:
1. It apologised for its handling of her complaint regarding the parking permit.
2. It offered her £50 compensation in reflection of its failings.
3. It confirmed that the £50 compensation payment would credited to her rent account which was in arrears.
4. Whilst it would not offer the resident a parking permit, it had carried out a full review of its parking process and allocations in 2019/2020, to prevent similar situations from occurring for other resident’s.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident via email and explained that it required more time to consider her complaint regarding rehousing. It stated that a senior manager was still reviewing the case and it provided an extended deadline of 29 October 2021.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response relating to her rehousing request on 29 October 2021 in which it stated:
1. Following a review, it found that it had acted in line with its policy and procedure regarding a priority move.
2. It stated that its response remained the same as outlined in its letter dated 26 May 2021 in that it had refused her priority move application as the areas in which she sought to be rehoused were not viable options.
3. It stated that all available properties in her areas of choice were advertised via the local authority and it was unable to allocate these properties through its own processes.
4. It advised the resident that it would reconsider her rehousing request should she wish to expand her areas of choice.
5. It confirmed that it felt she met the criteria for a priority move.

Post complaints process

The landlord’s records show that on 25 November 2021, it made a telephone call to the resident. The resident was upset about its decision regarding her rehousing request. The landlord apologised to the resident as it had sent a letter to her property, not to her temporary accommodation where she was still staying at that time. The landlord explained its position again and that her chances of being allocated a new property in her areas of choice were very limited and this could take several years, and that it may not be able to satisfy her rehousing request at all.
The landlord advised again that she may wish to consider other areas where it held housing stock. The resident stated that she had returned the keys to the property and the landlord sought to reassure her that it had not terminated the tenancy and she could return should she wish to do so. The resident stated that she wanted to return to the property and the landlord arranged a lock change and would book in any repairs that may be required. The landlord’s records state that the resident made an allegation that a previous member of staff had told her that she could not be moved due to her ethnicity. The officer stated that they were unable to comment on this.
In emails to this Service in January 2022, the resident stated that she had never received a stage two response from the landlord regarding her complaint about a parking permit. She also explained that she did not receive any explanation when moving into temporary accommodation in March 2021,around what to do with her belongings, which she removed from the property. She confirmed that she had received a discretionary housing payment for rent arrears. She also confirmed that the landlord had replaced the front door at the property on 28 December 2021, but she was waiting for the landlord to carry out a deep clean of the property following a break in.
On 10 February 2022, during a call to this Service, the resident confirmed that she had returned to her property. She also confirmed that her complaint related to;
1. A parking permit.
2. Damage to her vehicle on the estate.
3. The landlord’s CCTV system was not working at the time when her vehicle was damaged.
4. The landlord had declined her property transfer request due to arrears on her rent account.
5. The resident also stated that she was planning to return to the property and there were outstanding repairs which the landlord had not completed;
  1. Damage to the front entrance door of the property which was caused during the time she was away from the property.
  2. Issues with the plumbing inside the property.
It is noted that some of the matters highlighted by the resident during the above telephone call have not been fully considered by the landlord’s via its complaints process. As outlined earlier within this report, these matters fall outside of the scope of this report. The resident may wish to refer these back to the landlord so that it can respond accordingly at the relevant stage(s) of its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The resident’s signed tenancy agreement outlines that where parking is permitted at its properties, separate rules and regulations apply, dependent on the location. The landlord’s website outlines how residents can apply for a parking permit and it may add resident’s to a waiting list. It also states it will not issue a parking permit where a resident has arrears on their rent account.
The landlord’s priority moves policy and procedure sets out how it will assist residents who require urgent rehousing:
1. Any decision to urgently move a resident is usually made by a panel of managers.
2. It will hold a panel hearing within three working days of receiving a priority move request form.
3. It provides a table of reasons for urgent rehousing which includes incidents of domestic violence.
4. It will make one offer of rehousing in such situations.
5. It may refuse applications if rent arrears exist but it will consider the individual circumstances of each case.
6. It will refuse applications where residents are only willing to move to an area where it does not have suitable properties.
7. It confirms that it does not provide any temporary accommodation. It will support resident’s in contacting the relevant local authority to request temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy outlines the following:
1. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days.
2. It aims to respond fully to stage one complaints within ten working days.
3. It aims to provide a response within 20 working days of a complaint escalation after stage one.
4. If these response times are not possible it will contact the resident to advise why and give a new response date which will not exceed a further 10 working days.
5. At stage two (review) of its complaints process, residents can select one of the following options;
  1. A review including involved residents and its staff or;
  2. A review consisting only of its staff.
6. Following the review, the landlord will provide its response within 10 working days.
7. In “exceptional” cases, the landlord will defer the decision if further advice is needed, or if it needs to consult a specialist or take legal advice.
8. It will advise residents of any need to extend the response time.
9. It outlines an appeal process should residents wish to challenge a decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that in cases where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service, it will consider a discretionary payment. It outlines that it may offer this to recognise distress or inconvenience caused for example, it may have taken repeated attempts to resolve an issue. Discretionary payments may be cash payments, gift vouchers or items such as flowers. It further states these payments are not admissions of liability.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking permit

The landlord’s position was initially clear with regards to a parking permit which it communicated this to the resident numerous times. It could however have been clearer in its later responses that it had already addressed this in its previous contacts with her and in a previous stage one complaint response. The landlord’s poor communications led the resident to believe that it was still considering this element of her complaint, over a significant period of time and it therefore failed to manage her expectations effectively.
Despite the landlord making its position clear, the landlord then changed its position and provided the resident with a parking permit at some point before April 2020. The reasons for this are unclear from the evidence reviewed by this Service. It then informed the resident that it had issued a permit incorrectly and instructed her to return it. Much later it offered an apology and £50 in compensation having admitted its error in its stage two complaint response dated 21 September 2021.
It is noted that this offer was made over one year after the landlord had revoked the parking permit and this only happened following contact from this Service. Whilst the landlord recognised its mistake in this regard and offered financial redress to the resident and outlined from learning changes that it would make to its parking permit allocation process, this was significantly delayed. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and did not take into account the impact of its identified error on the resident and gave no clear indication as to how it would resolve the issue. This Service finds that there is no reasonable explanation for this delay which is therefore amounts to a service failing.
This Service’s spotlight on information and knowledge management outlines what is reasonably expected of landlord’s in relation to their record keeping. An order relating to the landlord’s record keeping is made within this report due to its identified failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request

The landlord acted appropriately in its swift handling of the resident’s request for emergency accommodation following a domestic violence incident. It signposted the resident to the local authority where she was able to quickly access temporary accommodation. The landlord made its position clear to the resident in that it did not have a statutory duty to provide her with temporary accommodation. It acted appropriately by referring her to the local authority to seek urgent rehousing as the local authority has the statutory duty to provide this. It acted positively and quickly in supporting the resident in this regard and it communicated with the local authority to validate her reasons for needing to urgently access temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s records show that it completed a priority move request form on 24 May 2021. This was over two months after the resident had accessed temporary accommodation through the local authority. It is not clear why the landlord took over two months to complete the request form but its records show that it did attempt to contact the resident during that time without success. Once the landlord had completed the priority move request form, it acted in line with its policy by arranging and discussing her case at a panel hearing on 26 May 2021.
The landlord’s position was made clear to the resident on numerous occasions in that it may take a significant amount of time for a suitable property to become available in her areas of choice. The landlord acted appropriately by advising her that she may be rehoused sooner if she was willing to expand her areas of choice. This Service finds that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations and that it followed its rehousing policy.
There were however delays in the resident receiving letters from the landlord about her rehousing request. The landlord confirmed to the resident during a telephone call on 25 November 2021 it had incorrectly sent letters to her property, whilst she had been staying in temporary accommodation since March 2021. This Service finds the landlord’s communications with the resident and its record keeping in this regard was poor which caused unnecessary delay and frustration to the resident. The landlord however acted reasonably and showed good practice by not taking steps to end the resident’s tenancy and this provided her with the option to return to her property.
This Service has not received any evidence to show that the resident considered making an appeal to the landlord’s decision on her rehousing application. Whilst the landlord did act appropriately regarding the resident’s rehousing request, its communications with her and its record keeping fell below what would be reasonably expected and there were delays in this process. This caused further detriment to the resident which therefore constitutes service failure.

Complaint handling

From the evidence reviewed by this Service, it is clear that the resident made a number of separate complaints to the landlord within the timescales considered in this report. The landlord lacked the knowledge of the resident’s ongoing and previous complaints. Had it effectively reviewed its current and previous positions, this would have enabled it to inform her which matters it had already responded to within its complaints process. This meant that the resident was confused about the progress and status of her individual complaints. Landlord’s should ensure that they keep accurate records of complaints in order to manage resident’s expectations and also for its own staff to have a good understanding of what the complaints are and if they have already been responded to.
In a stage one complaint response dated 13 November 2020, with regards to a parking permit, the landlord informed the resident “I cannot see that this has been investigated at Stage 1 so we are able to investigate this issue separately.” At this point the landlord should have considered escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process. This Service finds that the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity. This approach therefore did not effectively manage her expectations.
The landlord had to be prompted and chased by this Service to provide the resident with its stage two complaint response about the parking issues. This was over one year following the related stage one complaint response. This Service finds that the landlord’s actions in this regard were unreasonable and it prevented the resident from furthering her complaint with this Service as its internal complaints procedure was not completed for a significant period of time. This was a major failing in the landlord’s complaint handling approaches and fell way beyond the 20 working day response timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
Whilst the landlord did acknowledge its error and apologised to the resident and made an offer of £50 in compensation, this Service finds that this amount does not accurately reflect the detriment caused to the resident.
There was a delay in the resident receiving the landlord’s stage one complaint response regarding her rehousing request, due to the resident having a new email address. It is noted that the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident’s old email address on 24 June 2021, which was reasonable as this was the information it held on its systems at this time.
The landlord only became aware of the resident having a new email address following contact from this Service on 2 July 2021. The resident confirmed her new email address to the landlord that same day. It is unclear when the landlord updated its systems with this information as the resident then had to chase it for a copy of its stage one response, which she eventually received on 23 July 2021, one month following the date of the stage one complaint response.
The landlord then asked the resident to complete a form on 20 August 2021 to confirm her new email address on its systems, this was seven weeks after she had already confirmed this information. This Service finds the landlord’s record keeping was poor and as a result, the resident was left within its internal complaints process for longer than was necessary. This caused frustration and delay to the resident which was unreasonable.
This Service’s complaint handling code outlines that landlords should have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. The landlord did not do this as it failed to communicate effectively with the resident and its record keeping regarding her previous and current complaints was poor. This led to confusion and delay for the resident around which aspects of her complaints that the landlord was, or was not considering at different stages of its complaints process. It failed to meet the response timescales listed within its complaints policy which left the resident within the complaints process for a significant period of time with little or no progress updates or sight of a resolution. This also meant that the resident was unable to bring her complaint to this Service as the landlord had not exhausted its complaints process. it did not provide full responses to her complaints and it failed to seek a resolution to her complaints at the earliest possible stage which is outlined in this Service’s complaint handling code. The landlord’s complaint handling actions and delays caused detriment to the resident in terms of distress and time and trouble in seeking a resolution. This Service therefore finds that the landlord’s complaint handling approaches amount to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling approaches.

Reasons

There were poor record keeping approaches by the landlord throughout the scope of this case. This included it not updating its records with the resident’s new email address in an accurate and timely manner and also that it sent important letters to the resident’s property when it knew she was not living there.
The landlord’s communications with the resident were mostly poor, especially when she was living in temporary accommodation. During that time the resident was still a tenant of the landlord and would reasonably expect the landlord to be in contact with her at her temporary address.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches were inconsistent and confusing throughout the time period within the scope of this report. Whilst it is noted that the resident made multiple complaints about separate matters to the landlord, it should have sufficient processes in place to effectively manage all complaints in line with its policies and procedures and this Service’s Scheme.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failures outlined in this report.
2. Contact the resident directly and determine which elements of her complaints remain unresolved and provide her and this Service with a time-specific action plan on how it aims to resolve them.
3. Pay the resident directly (not applying it to any existing arrears on the resident’s rent account) a total of £1100 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £300 in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.
  2. £100 in relation to its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  3. £700 in relation to its poor complaint handling approaches.
4. Provide this Service with evidence confirming compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.