London Borough of Hackney (202229549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229549

London Borough of Hackney

19 August 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

The resident had reported various incidents to the landlord from July 2020 and she believes that the incidents amount to racial harassment and attacks. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not racial harassment and attacks took place as these are matters for the police to investigate, and the courts to decide upon.
We have investigated the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports. We have considered whether the landlord’s handling of her reports was in line with its obligations and policies.
The outcome sought by the resident was for the landlord to move her. We understand the resident’s wish to move to an area where she would feel safe. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide this outcome and we cannot order the landlord to move her.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. She lives in a 3 bedroom flat with her 3 children. The landlord is a council which owns and manages the resident’s flat and the block it is in.
The landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her family. However, the evidence shows the landlord is aware that the resident does not speak English as her first language. The evidence seen shows that the landlord was also made aware, during the events in this case, that the resident and her children had mental health conditions.
On 1 July 2020 the resident reported that racially specific graffiti had been written on the wall outside her flat. She said it was not the first racist incident and she was becoming anxious. The landlord said its ASB team would call her.
Between 6 July 2020 and 10 September 2020, the resident called the landlord at least 4 times to report incidents. It is not clear from the evidence seen what action, if any, the landlord took during this time.
On 29 January 2021 the case was discussed at a multi-agency ASB panel attended by the police, landlord and representatives from other agencies. The ASB panel continued to oversee the case and co-ordinate the actions of the relevant agencies.
An advocate for the resident emailed the landlord on 26 February 2021. They said the resident wanted to move due to the “racist harassment” from a neighbour as the situation was affecting her mental health. They told the landlord that the resident had a “language barrier” that made it difficult for her to access services. They asked the landlord to contact her with an interpreter.
On 2 February 2022 the ASB panel decided the case should be closed as the resident had not reported any incidents since 2 December 2021.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 February 2022 and noted she had confirmed there were no current issues with her neighbours. The landlord closed its ASB case on 8 March 2022 and noted that the alleged perpetrator had moved.
The landlord received an enquiry from a local councillor in July 2022 saying that no one had contacted the resident about the racial harassment she was experiencing. The landlord opened another ASB case but it is not clear what action it took, if any.
Between 6 September 2022 and 29 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times. She confirmed that she was willing to be a witness on another ASB case the landlord was dealing with. She also asked for updates and a meeting with the landlord about her own case.
On 5 December 2022 the resident reported “racist” graffiti and that her car window had been broken. She said neighbours kept shouting at her and her children, and they were all frightened.
The resident made a formal complaint on 28 December 2022 which said:
1. She had been reporting racist “attacks” to the landlord and police since 2020.
2. Her English was not sufficient to explain the problems.
3. The racist graffiti had been removed 3 times but it did not make her feel safer. Her car window had been broken twice.
4. She had sent doctor’s letters explaining how it was affecting the family but the landlord had not taken the matter seriously.
5. She had asked for a meeting but the landlord had ignored her request.
6. She wanted the landlord to move her to a safer place.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023 which said:
1. It was sorry to hear about the ASB and for its delay in responding to her complaint.
2. Its ASB team had investigated and her case had been discussed at the ASB panel.
3. The police had closed its case because no suspect had been identified. She should continue to report criminal incidents to the police.
4. The historic “issues” with her neighbour had been resolved.
5. It had tried to call her after she reported an incident on 5 December 2022 but she had not answered the call.
6. She should report any further incidents to its ASB team.
On 24 February 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the handling of her ASB reports and the outcome of her complaint. We gave advice on how she could escalate her complaint.
On 18 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord again. The landlord later told us it had rejected the complaint as it was about the same matters as her previous complaint. We have not seen a copy of this complaint or the landlord’s rejection letter.
The resident’s authorised representative contacted the Ombudsman on 7 August 2023. She said the landlord had not responded to the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated. After further communication with the resident and her representative, we wrote to the landlord on 27 October 2023 asking it to respond to her escalation request.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 3 November 2023 which said:
1. The resident’s complaint related to historic reports of ASB which had been investigated by its ASB team and the police. It had taken her reports seriously and had supported her.
2. It had closed the case in March 2022 and had not received any reports since then.
3. It understood that she felt she was being “racially targeted” but she had not been able to name a perpetrator or give evidence.
4. It had told her that, without evidence, it could not substantiate her claims. She should send any evidence she had to its ASB team and the police.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate on 16 November 2023. She said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and complaint. She said the ASB was continuing and she was frightened for her family’s safety. She said the issues had affected her mental health and that of her children.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

As a registered provider of social housing, the landlord is obliged to meet the Regulator of Social Housing’s regulatory standards. The neighbourhood and community standard published in April 2012 required the landlord to:
1. Publish its policy on how it worked with relevant partners to prevent and tackle ASB in its neighbourhoods.
2. Ensure residents were made aware of their rights and responsibilities.
3. Demonstrate strong leadership, commitment and accountability on preventing and tackling ASB.
4. Tailor its approaches towards the needs of residents and their families.
5. Ensure residents could easily report ASB and keep them informed about the status of their case.
6. Take prompt and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalated.
The landlord did not send us its ASB policy that was in place when the resident first reported incidents in July 2020. However, we would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged her reports within a reasonable timescale, to have told her what action it could take and to have given advice on other options available to her. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have done an assessment of the risk of harm to the resident and her family and to use it to decide the interventions that could reduce the risk.
The evidence suggests that the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial reports was inadequate. For example, when she first reported the graffiti on 1 July 2020, the landlord did not attempt to call her until 9 July 2020 which was after she had made a second report. When the resident missed the landlord’s call on 9 July 2020, we have seen no evidence that it made any further attempts to contact her until a housing officer called her on 17 July 2020 (after the resident had called again) telling her the ASB team would deal with her reports.
Similarly, when the resident called again on 24 July 2020, a housing officer again left her a message saying the landlord would deal with the issues. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the reports or opened an ASB case. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the landlord took no action at all until 10 September 2020 when it advised the resident to report the incidents to the police.
As such the landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable or timely action when responding to the residents initial reports of ASB. Nor has it demonstrated that it considered the risk of harm to the resident and her family, or any support needs they had.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether it was the landlord or another agency that had referred the resident’s case to the multi-agency ASB panel around January 2021. While the actions agreed at the panel meetings were reasonable, the landlord’s records suggest that the focus of discussions was often more about the alleged perpetrator than the resident. For example, the landlord’s records of the ASB panel meetings held on 2 June 2021, 7 July 2021 and 4 August 2021 did not refer to the resident at all.
The resident was trying to make serious allegations about ASB which would have been aided by use of an interpreter. The landlord was aware that the resident had a language barrier from at least 26 February 2021 when the resident’s advocate had asked the landlord to provide an interpreter for her.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this request or even that it responded to the advocate’s email.
Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord provided an interpreter at any point during this case. This was despite other occasions where the landlord was alerted to the resident’s language barrier including:
1. 26 November 2021 when the resident’s daughter had emailed the landlord on her behalf. The email said the landlord had spoken to her mother earlier in the day but “her English is not really good so she could not really explain”.
2. 2 December 2021 when the case was discussed at the ASB panel. The landlord’s record of the meeting referred to a request for an interpreter to assist with discussions with the resident. The landlord’s record did not say who had made the request or which agency should have considered it. Regardless of these omissions, the landlord was present so would have known about the need for an interpreter.
3. 21 July 2022 when an internal email said that the landlord had received an enquiry from a councillor and that the resident needed “translation support”.
4. 31 January 2023 when the landlord’s tenancy records show a housing officer had visited her. The resident had called a friend to translate for her.
The landlord is a public body and, as such, has a duty to have due regard to the resident’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The landlord’s failure to consider the language barrier it was aware of could be seen as discriminatory practice and the landlord not having due regard to her human rights. The Ombudsman cannot make a determination of discrimination or breach of the legal duties, as a court can. However, it does appear that the landlord did not have due regard to the resident’s rights as it should have done.
The Ombudsman does conclude that the landlord’s actions were not fair in all the circumstances and put the resident at a significant disadvantage due to English not being her first language. This was a serious failing that meant the landlord did not fully understand the reports that the resident was trying to make. It was also contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy (from March 2022) which says it will provide translation and interpretation services where needed.
We have seen little evidence that the landlord was keeping the resident informed of what was happening in her ASB case. For example, an internal email dated 10 March 2021 shows that an ASB officer had spoken to the resident that day. However, there was no reference to what had been discussed apart from the resident’s request to move. There were no references in the landlord’s ASB records that referred to it giving any case updates to the resident.
By 10 March 2021, the landlord knew that the resident still did not feel safe and wanted to move. The ASB officer’s internal email of 10 March 2021 had asked to discuss her request with colleagues but we have seen no evidence of such a discussion taking place. Nor have we seen evidence that any rehousing advice was given to the resident.
Similarly, the landlord’s records of the ASB panel meeting held on 7 April 2021 show it was given an action to contact the resident about her rehousing request. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
On 12 August 2021, a social worker had emailed the landlord’s ASB officer asking for information about the ASB case. The email said the social worker was concerned about the wellbeing of the resident’s youngest child. While the ASB officer responded to the email, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared the social worker’s concerns with the ASB panel for consideration. We have seen no evidence that this happened or that the landlord considered whether there were any safeguarding concerns that it should investigate or act upon.
The ASB officer’s response to the social worker said that safety planning had been done with the resident. It did not explain which agency had done this or what measures had been put in place as a result. Further, we have seen no evidence of any safety planning carried out at any point.
The landlord’s ASB panel records show that the resident’s belief that another neighbour was coercing the alleged perpetrator to harass her was discussed at a meeting on 3 November 2021. The records suggest that the resident had reported incidents but were not clear whether they were new incidents or historic ones that she had previously reported.
Similarly, the email sent by the resident’s daughter on 26 November 2021 and the landlord’s records of the ASB panel meeting on 2 December 2021 did not make it clear whether the resident was reporting new incidents or referring to previous ones.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified whether incidents were continuing and we have seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord’s records of the ASB panel meeting on 5 January 2022 suggest that the resident was experiencing new ASB incidents. Its records said that the landlord was still investigating because the resident had identified a different neighbour causing the issues. The landlord was given an action to review CCTV footage and continue its investigations. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did either.
We would have expected the landlord to have discussed the decision to close the ASB with the resident before doing so. This would have enabled the landlord to make sure that there were no ongoing issues, to explain the closure decision and give advice to the resident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident before closing the ASB case on 8 March 2022.
Further, we have seen no evidence that the landlord notified the resident that it had closed the case. This meant that the resident was not aware that her case had been closed and did not have the opportunity to challenge the decision. It was also contrary to the landlord’s obligation to keep the resident informed of the status of her case.
The policy the landlord sent us for this investigation was effective from March 2022. We would have expected to see that the landlord had followed this policy when it received further reports from the resident after then.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, or nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to the occupation of their home. The policy says that the landlord will:
1. Assess each report it receives and decide if it is ASB. If it decides a report is ASB it will investigate and seek evidence.
2. Take quick and appropriate action.
3. Work with the police where ASB involves criminal activity.
4. Provide translation and interpretation services where needed.
5. Agree an action plan with the person reporting ASB and keep them up to date with progress.
6. Look for other ways of getting evidence including using CCTV.
7. Discuss decisions to close a case with the reporter before doing so.
We observed that the ASB policy the landlord provided to us, and the published version on its website, appear to be incomplete. For example, the section explaining its ASB services says its housing management service is responsible for dealing with ASB and suggests it should include relevant contact details. However, no contact details are given but the words “insert contact details”. This suggests that the landlord had intended to add the contact details but had not done so. The landlord should review its published policy document to ensure it is complete as it intended.
It was appropriate that the landlord opened another ASB case after receiving an enquiry from the resident’s councillor in July 2022. However, the landlord took until 17 August 2022 to open the ASB case and we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to assess her report and decide whether it should investigate. These failings were contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy at the time.
The resident chased the landlord twice in September 2022 asking for an update on her case. On 20 October 2022 she had called the landlord asking for a meeting to discuss it. We have seen no evidence that the landlord gave any updates to her or responded to her request for a meeting. Nor have we seen any evidence of the landlord carrying out any investigations, completing an action plan or taking any of the actions that its ASB policy says it will take.
The evidence suggests the second case ASB case was closed on 8 November 2022 because the landlord believed it was a duplicate case. At the time, the landlord appears to have had another open ASB case in which the resident was a named witness.
Again, we have seen no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident before it closed the ASB case. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to check whether its assumption that the case was a duplicate was correct and to realise it had not followed its policy in respect of the resident’s ASB concerns. Failing to discuss the decision to close the case with the resident before doing so was also contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy.
When the resident contacted the landlord again on 5 December 2022 the landlord should have established whether she was reporting new incidents and responded in accordance with its policy. While the landlord did attempt to call the resident, we have seen no evidence that it made any further attempts when it was not able to reach her. This was inadequate given the vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of and the period that the resident had been reporting incidents.
The resident’s formal complaint of 28 December 2022 was an opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of her ASB reports. The landlord’s enquiries to its ASB and housing management teams resulted in a housing officer visiting the resident on 31 January 2023. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and an opportunity for the landlord to gain a full understanding of the resident’s reports.
It was unfortunate that the resident was too upset to discuss the situation with the housing officer. However, the outcome may have been different if the landlord had not mishandled her earlier reports.
It was reasonable that the housing officer emailed the ASB team asking it to contact the resident. However, it took the ASB team until 6 March 2023 to respond saying it would do so which was 24 working days after the housing officer had emailed.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not include any timescales for responding to ASB reports, except for “racist” incidents where it says the landlord will interview the reporter within 24 hours.
We have not seen the email that the housing officer sent to the ASB team so it is not clear whether it had referred to any racist incidents. However, the Ombudsman does not consider 24 working days to be a reasonable timescale to acknowledge an ASB report.
Further, we have seen no evidence that the ASB team did contact the resident or carried out any investigations at all.
The police had emailed the landlord on 18 July 2023 after visiting the resident about reports she had made about a different neighbour. The email said that the reports were of “verbal disagreements” and that the police did not consider them to be criminal offences.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made further enquiries and to have considered whether the incidents reported to the police should be considered as ASB under its policy. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord’s failure to provide interpretation services at any point put the resident at a significant disadvantage and was unfair. Its failure to follow its ASB policy to any degree from March 2022 meant that the resident’s reports remain unresolved. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord told us that it did not have a complaints policy at the time the resident complained on 28 December 2022. It told us that it had followed its procedure in place at the time but did not send us a copy of that procedure. The landlord has since implemented a complaints policy from 1 December 2023.
As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is required to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling in this case against the Code published in March 2022.
The Code required the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It required it to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
As with its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, the landlord missed opportunities to consider her language barrier in its complaint handling. For example, in her initial complaint of 28 December 2022, the resident had said that her English was not sufficient to explain the ASB problems to her housing officer.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether it should provide an interpreter and translated communications when dealing with her complaint. This would have shown the landlord’s regard to its duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 and its consideration of the Code’s requirements for its complaint process to be accessible.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the language barrier at any point and this put the resident at a significant disadvantage in trying to progress her complaint through the landlord’s process. It also undermined the landlord’s ability to understand her complaint and provide adequate responses.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the timescale set by the Code and should have sent its stage 1 response by 17 January 2023. The landlord could have extended its response timescale if it anticipated that it would not be able to respond within the 10 working days required by the Code.
However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not ask its ASB team for information relating to the resident’s case until 17 January 2023 which was the day its response was due. It is not clear from the evidence seen why this delay happened.
The landlord did attempt to call the resident on 4 January 2023 and 14 January 2023. However, we have seen no evidence that it had notified her that it needed to extend its response timescale.
The landlord’s failure to provide a complaint response within the required timescale caused the resident to ask for her complaint to be escalated on 26 January 2023.
The Code at the time stated that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it had completed stage 1. It also stated that landlords must give residents a written explanation of any decision not to escalate their complaint and tell them of their right to approach the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s email of 27 January 2023 told the resident it would not escalate her complaint until it had given a stage 1 response. However, it did not explain why this was the case or inform the resident of her right to approach the Ombudsman. Nor did it give a revised timescale for providing a stage 1 response.
The landlord’s email had implied that the reason it had not yet given a stage 1 response was because it was waiting for information from its service teams. This was not a full and accurate explanation given the delay of 10 working days before the landlord had asked its service teams for information.
The evidence suggests that the landlord did not receive all the information it wanted from its service teams until 6 February 2023. This mean the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 February 2023 was given 25 working days after the resident had complained. The landlord should consider why the delays in requesting and getting information from its service teams occurred and how it can avoid such delays in future.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the issues the resident had raised in her complaint. For example, it did not address her request to be moved despite acknowledging that she had requested this. The landlord’s response should have given advice about her housing options or committed to contacting her separately to do so.
The evidence also suggests that the landlord had not adequately investigated its handling of the resident’s ASB case. For example, it said that the resident’s calls had been redirected to the ASB team but did not acknowledge that the ASB team had not responded to them.
Similarly, the response said that the “historic” issues between her and 1 neighbour had been resolved. It did not acknowledge that she had made reports about other neighbours or explain how it had investigated them.
The landlord’s later stage 2 response said that the resident had made another complaint on 18 July 2023 that the landlord had rejected it as being a duplicate complaint. We asked the landlord for a copy of the resident’s complaint and its rejection letter but it did not respond.
However, the landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had referred to incidents of racist graffiti and criminal damage between 1 July 2020 and 21 November 2020. As such it appears the complaint was about the same matters the resident had complained about on 28 December 2022 to which the landlord had given its stage 1 response on 8 February 2023.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether the resident’s complaint of 18 July 2023 should have been dealt with as an escalation request. The landlord should have contacted the resident if it was in any doubt and we have seen no evidence that it did so.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s decision to reject the resident’s complaint of 18 July 2023 was inappropriate.
The landlord logged the resident’s escalation request on 27 October 2023 after our intervention and it was reasonable that it promptly attempted to contact the resident. It also sent the resident an email on 1 November 2023 acknowledging her escalation request.
We acknowledge that the landlord’s desire to provide its stage 2 response within the timescale we had given limited the time it had to investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 2. However, the time constraints would have been avoided if the landlord had not mishandled the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 November 2023 was inadequate. For example, it said that the resident had made no reports of ASB after March 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord had opened another ASB case in August 2022, that the resident had called it in December 2022 to report incidents, and that the police had notified it of further reports she had made in July 2023. This means the statement in the landlord’s response was inaccurate.
Given the serious nature of the resident’s allegations of racial harassment, the landlord’s response that it could do nothing unless she could provide evidence, was inadequate. The landlord’s response acknowledged that the resident believed the harassment had not been resolved. It should have considered what support it could give, what investigations it could undertake and what other agencies could do to help.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s stage 2 response to have acknowledged its failure to recognise the resident’s escalation request from her complaint of 18 July 2023. An internal email dated 31 October 2023 shows that the landlord had recognised by then that it should have logged that complaint as an escalation request. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge its mistake was a missed opportunity to demonstrate transparency and openness.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that both of its complaint responses had been late. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering compensation for this. To do so would have been in line with its compensation policy at the time which said that it would consider compensation where it had been at fault in the way it had considered a complaint.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it fulfilled the requirements of the Code in handling the resident’s complaint. Its failings amount to maladministration.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The Chief Executive must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident and her family. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,500. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Meet with the resident in person to discuss her ASB concerns. The landlord must provide an interpreter to support the meeting. If ASB incidents are continuing, the landlord must follow its ASB policy in investigating them and working with other relevant agencies. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should not refuse to investigate if the resident is not able to name alleged perpetrators or is unable to provide evidence. The landlord should look for other ways of “getting proof” as its ASB policy says it will.
4. Following the meeting, the landlord must write to the resident setting out:
  1. Its understanding of the ASB issues she has raised.
  2. Its assessment of whether it considers the issues to be ASB as defined in its policy.
  3. Its action plan for investigating and responding to her concerns.
  4. Its understanding of any related support needs the resident has and how the landlord will address them.
  5. How it will work with other relevant agencies.
  6. How it will keep her informed of progress.
  7. Its response to any other matters the resident raised during the meeting.

The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.

Update its records of the resident’s vulnerabilities and communication needs.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Identifies the causes of the delays in requesting and receiving information from its service teams in this case. The landlord should consider how it can avoid such delays in future.
2. Considers the complaint handling failings identified in this report when reviewing its policy and practices against the statutory Code.
3. Considers how it can make sure that it replies to the Ombudsman’s information requests.
4. Reviews its published ASB policy and procedure documents to ensure they complete as it intended.