London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202098

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 May 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom end-of-terrace house under a secure tenancy agreement.
On 28 January 2022, the resident reported an incident of ASB to the landlord which occurred on 25 January 2022 (referred to in this report as the first incident). The resident reported that:
1. two engineers attended her home to install an internet connection
2. whilst she was showing one of the engineers around the property, she heard shouting from her front garden
3. upon returning to the front garden, she saw that the second engineer had entered her neighbour’s front garden to access the cables to the resident’s home
4. her neighbour (the neighbour) started shouting and swearing at the resident in a threatening manner
5. the resident believed that the neighbour’s behaviour was racially motivated.
The resident raised a complaint, via her representative, on 28 January 2022. She was dissatisfied that she had attempted to report the incident but had been unable to speak to an appropriate operative. The landlord contacted the resident and her representative on 31 January 2022. A meeting was held on 7 February 2022. The landlord logged the incident and completed an assessment on 9 February 2022. It categorised the report as a hate related incident.
The resident raised a further complaint on 3 March 2022. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication. In resolution of her complaint, she wanted the landlord to:
1. respond to her complaint
2. offer compensation
3. move her front garden fence.
During a telephone conversation with the resident on 9 March 2022, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the difficulty she experienced in reporting the first incident. It recorded that the resident was satisfied with this outcome.
On 5 April 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had closed her ASB report on the basis that there was insufficient evidence for it to take further action.
On 28 April 2022, the resident reported a further incident (referred to in this report as the second incident). She reported that:
1. her drainpipe had been removed from the external wall of the property
2. she believed that this was done by her neighbour
3. she asked for the landlord to appoint an operative to investigate that was different to the operative that investigated the first incident.
The resident raised further complaints on 3 and 18 May 2022. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. she received a telephone call from the landlord on 29 April 2022, and found the operative’s behaviour and tone to be rude and demeaning
2. the landlord had implied that she was wrong to ask another operative to investigate the second incident
3. she believed that the landlord had not handled the reports of ASB appropriately
4. the landlord had delayed in providing its complaint response.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022, the landlord:
1. explained that the first incident had been investigated and closed due to a lack of evidence
2. stated that it had discussed its telephone call to the resident with the relevant operative and that they denied the resident’s allegations
3. acknowledged that the resident believed the second incident was caused by the neighbour
4. stated that the resident’s neighbour had made a counter-allegation against the resident
5. explained that the second incident had been investigated and closed due to a lack of evidence
6. acknowledged that the resident believed that these incidents were racially motivated
7. stated that there was no evidence on which it could conclude that the incidents were racially motivated
8. advised the resident to maintain a detailed record of any incidents of ASB in future.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, in that:
1. the landlord’s response did not explain what it would do to resolve her complaint
2. the landlord offered no compensation
3. the landlord continued to try and contact her by phone, despite her previous request that it contact her in writing
4. the landlord had not examined a recording of the phone call which she had complained about
5. she believed that the landlord had not adequately investigated her complaints.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 August 2022, the landlord:
1. stated that it upheld the resident’s complaint
2. explained that it had restructured its services and now had dedicated officers to investigate reports of ASB
3. explained that only calls to and from its call centre were recorded, and therefore it was unable to examine a recording of the phone call complained about
4. apologised to the resident
5. offered the resident £150 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for its delayed complaint responses
  2. £50 for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will investigate reports of ASB by gathering evidence from the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim, and any witnesses. The policy goes on to state that the landlord will maintain regular contact with the resident who reported the ASB, and where the landlord decides to take no further action, it will explain its reasons for this and offer appropriate advice.
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) published a guidance document in 2016 called ‘How to tackle hate crime’. This guidance defines hate crime as: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice’. A hate crime might relate to a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.
The CIH guidance also defines a hate incident. This is noted as: ‘A report to the police (or other authority) that might then be classed as one or more crimes’.
The landlord’s hate crime and hate related incidents policy outlines similar definitions of the two terms. Whether a hate incident is deemed to be a hate crime is a matter for the police to decide, not a social landlord. However, all levels of incident that meet the above perception test when reported to a landlord should be taken seriously, recorded, and lead to an appropriate response. The hate crime policy confirms that any incident that is perceived as hate related, should be recorded and investigated as such.
On this occasion, the verbal abuse the resident reported that occurred on 25 January 2022 should have been treated as a hate incident. The available evidence indicates that the landlord logged the report as a hate related incident on 9 February 2022. The assessment below has considered the way in which the landlord’s hate crime policy states that it should handle reports it receives and whether the available evidence indicates that the landlord appropriately followed its policy.

Respond promptly to all reports of hate related incidents by carrying out an assessment within one working day.

The resident has stated that she called the landlord a number of times to report the incident that occurred on 25 January 2022. On each occasion, the landlord failed to log or assess her reports. The landlord has identified that the resident called on 26 and 27 January 2022 and spoke to staff. No written record of either call was logged by the landlord. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that staff listened to the calls and found that on 26 January 2022, the call handler agreed to call the resident back, but did not. On 27 January, the call handler transferred the resident to the tenancy team and after 12 minutes on hold, the call disconnected.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 28 January 2022 to raise a complaint about its handling of her report. The landlord contacted the resident and her representative on 31 January 2022. A meeting was held on 7 February 2022. The resident spoke with the landlord again on 9 February 2022. The landlord’s activity log indicates that its tenancy management officer completed an assessment on 9 February 2022 when the hate related incident was logged. Although exactly what the outcome of that assessment was is unclear. Although the landlord completed an assessment the same day that the incident was logged, it failed to log the incident within a reasonable timeframe. The incident should have been logged on 26 January 2022 and immediately referred for assessment.
The hate crime policy commits the landlord to taking a victim-centred approach. Its initial failure to record the incident and take steps to investigate and support the resident highlights a significant shortfall in this regard. CIH’s guidance on tackling hate crime indicates that crime surveys suggest that hate crime is severely under-reported. Landlords should therefore do everything to avoid barriers that prevent victims reporting. A variety of routes should be available for people to report incidents. It is noted that the landlord has a dedicated online form to report hate related incidents. However, the telephone number listed as an alternative is the landlord’s general number (as opposed to a dedicated line). To avoid the landlord failing to log future hate incidents, it is ordered that the landlord should review its existing reporting route for telephony to ensure future reports are correctly logged and residents are offered appropriate support.
Ultimately, the process should run smoothly and efficiently to prevent unnecessary additional distress to the victim. The resident has highlighted that she was regularly asked by different call handlers to go over old ground due to the landlord’s poor record keeping. It is therefore ordered that the landlord should consider what steps it can implement to avoid the need for victims to recount previous incidents.

Ensure the risk of harm to the victim is appropriately identified and assessed.

The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that a risk assessment was completed following the hate related incident being logged. A risk assessment is the assimilation of information to determine the risk of harm being posed to an individual. It is completed following a conversation with the victim. Made up of carefully structured questions, the assessment highlights risk at an early stage and prioritises it according to the level of severity. Once the level of risk has been identified, the assessment will then guide the case handling officer towards the appropriate and necessary steps to try to protect the victim from further harm. The outcome of the assessment is shared with all agencies involved with the case to provide adequate support to the victim.
At this stage, it is expected that the landlord would have considered the vulnerable status of the resident as a victim of a hate related incident. This includes a consideration of any safeguarding concerns. The CIH published a guidance document in 2020 called ‘How to support hate crime victims’. It confirms that following a report of hate incident, the vulnerability of the victim should be assessed as soon as possible. The guidance highlights that hate crime is recognised as having a more significant impact on its victims, compared with victims of non-hate motivated offences. There are both direct and indirect impacts ranging from physical injury to emotional and/or psychological harm. It quotes a Crime Survey for England and Wales which found that hate crime victims were twice as likely to suffer a loss of confidence or increased feelings of vulnerability after the incident compared with non-hate crime victims. In addition, not all victims have the same ‘starting point’, some are more vulnerable and at risk than others.
A risk assessment is not merely a bureaucratic exercise, but integral to the management of a hate related incident case. This is because its identification of high-risk or medium-risk victims guides the subsequent handling of the case. The results of the assessment should be shared with other agencies that are involved in supporting/protecting the victim. These factors underline the importance of the landlord undertaking a risk assessment and ensuring that the resident is supported. It is expected, as a minimum, that the landlord would have informed the resident of support available from independent organisations such as Stop Hate UK, Victim Support, ASB Help or Supportline. There is no evidence to show that it took this step.
The landlord’s telephone log shows that the resident spoke with the landlord on 28 April 2022 to report a further incident. The written summary of the call notes that ‘she does not know how much more she can take’, ‘feels constantly threatened’ and ‘feels like saying goodbye to the world as it is unbearable how she is expected to put up with the neighbours’.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy confirms that ‘safeguarding is everyone’s business which means that we should never ignore any concerns that we witness during the course of our work and always report any incident or risk of harm or abuse’. This call should have prompted the landlord to complete an immediate welfare/safeguarding check. Although the landlord called the resident the next day to discuss the recent incident, it is not clear that the landlord took any action in response to the concerns she raised about the impact these issues were having on her. Again, no risk assessment was completed.
The hate crime policy commits the landlord to taking a victim-centred approach. Its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerable status or safeguarding needs or to refer her to support services is reflective of a serious shortfall in this regard.

We will try to understand the motivations behind the incident so as to identify whether it is harassment and/or hate crime.

The landlord uses the definition found in the Equality Act 2010 to identify hate-related harassment: ‘Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.’
The evidence provided by the landlord does not indicate that it documented any assessment of the incident in order to formally identify it as a hate crime or harassment. However, the landlord did liaise with the police, spoke to both parties about the incident and approached the engineers for a witness statement. As such, it is clear that the landlord did take steps to investigate and try to understand the motivations of the incident.
The hate crime policy commits the landlord to taking a victim-centred approach. This means acting on the information presented by the victim even if it is unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, and approaching all cases in a sensitive and non-judgemental way. As the police has confirmed, there is a lack of evidence to support the resident’s report. Nevertheless, the landlord has fully investigated the matter and has therefore acted appropriately in relation to its victim-centred approach.
This victim-centred approach works both ways. This means that when the landlord receives counter allegations from the perpetrator, it is expected to investigate these matters with an equally open mind. As such, the landlord did not act inappropriately when it reviewed the video evidence provided by the perpetrator. The available evidence does not indicate that the landlord considered that the video was reliable or that its handling of the matter was significantly affected by the video. Submitting malicious or false allegations to the landlord could qualify as ASB or harassment. However, it is not expected that the landlord would reach such a conclusion based simply on the video evidence it received.

Check if there have been previous incidents involving the alleged perpetrator so as patterns of repeat victimisation can be established.

Following the meetings in early February 2022, the landlord asked the resident to provide details of previous incidents that occurred. The resident responded with further information of incidents from the past 15 years, but she was unable to provide dates and times or specific evidence to support her concerns. The resident did not report these matters to the police or the landlord at the time they occurred. Given the length of time that had passed, the landlord’s ability to properly investigate these historic issues was significantly impaired. As such, it is not considered that its lack of investigation was inappropriate.

Agree an action plan with the victim.

There is no evidence to show that the landlord agreed and documented an action plan with the resident. It is appreciated that it is likely that the landlord provided verbal confirmation of the actions it intended to take, but the landlord’s failure to agree a written action plan with the resident is a failing.
The landlord’s closure letter dated 5 April 2022 outlined the steps it had taken when investigating the matter. However, this plan should have been agreed and shared at the time of logging. A lack of understanding of what steps are being taken contributes to residents feeling that their case is not being dealt with efficiently or effectively. Clarity for residents of what actions are going to be taken, and by when, improves understanding and sets realistic expectations. Written action plans can also help the landlord as a case management tool.

Regularly contact the victim and keep them informed about progress.

After the initial delay to log and respond to the resident’s report, the landlord was in regular contact with her and her representative. However, it is acknowledged that these were usually prompted by the resident contacting the landlord. By agreeing an action plan, the landlord could have formally arranged a frequency of updates with the resident.
Overall, a close examination of the hate related policy shows that there were a number of failings in relation to its handling of this case. It is worrying that the resident had to raise a complaint via a third party before the landlord would log and investigate a hate related incident. The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment, formulate an action plan or refer the resident to support services are also evidence of a significant shortfall in its handling of this matter. Of particular concern is its failure to act on the serious concerns the resident raised during the call on 28 April 2022.
The Victims Commissioner’s report on ASB from 2019 has highlighted that the police, local authorities and social housing landlords all have responsibility to tackle ASB by working together to help victims. Too often, victims are being passed from one body to the other and feeling as if no one is listening. The nature of ASB is such that it may require many agencies to be involved in investigating and resolving it. On this occasion, the landlord has not simply referred the resident to the police. The landlord acted, after an initial delay, on the resident’s report and took steps to investigate. However, the landlord has not shown that it explored all possible preventive measures or future evidence capturing in response to her reports.
It is acknowledged that ASB cases with counterclaims and a lack of independent evidence make it difficult for landlords to identify the correct course of action. The landlord is not expected to take legal action (such as, injunctions or possession proceedings) in response to all the ASB cases reported to it. However, there are non-legal powers that the landlord can use to tackle persistent ASB and improve community relations. Acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation and warning letters. It is accepted that the landlord suggested mediation and the resident decided against. Although most mediation processes result in a face-to-face meeting, there is no requirement to do so where one or both of the parties do not feel comfortable. Mediation as a tool for good neighbourhood management is not the best approach in all instances, but, if it is the thought of meeting face-to-face with her neighbour that is putting the resident off the process, it is advised that the resident should reconsider mediation.
ASB cases cannot remain open indefinitely. The landlord had explored all avenues of investigation and on that basis, it was entitled to conclude that the case should be closed. However, before it did, it should have considered if there were other actions it could take. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates. There is no evidence to show that an ABC or a written warning were considered by the landlord after mediation was declined. Its ASB policy specifically notes that it will consider these options (along with mediation) to prevent problems escalating. By failing to take any action before closing a case, landlords risk nuisance and ASB incidents being left unaddressed. These incidents can easily escalate, entrench and expand into other issues. This can wear down community bonds – leading to a wider, deeper sense of dissatisfaction. In addition, a lack of action can also erode trust and confidence in the landlord’s commitment to tackling ASB.
The hate related incidents policy also commits, where appropriate, to supporting victims to make improvements to the security of their home. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord explored this option. I understand that the resident took action herself to install CCTV. The landlord should consider reimbursing these costs.
An independent review commissioned by the landlord’s Residents Service Board was critical of its handling of racist incidents. In July 2021, the landlord committed to improving the way it dealt with hate crime and antisocial behaviour. It is therefore deeply concerning that six months later, the resident experienced a number of failings in the landlord’s response to her reports of hate crime.
Under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can order a landlord to review their policy or practice in relation to a matter if that policy and practice may give rise to further complaints about that matter. The failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports is sufficient to cast doubt over the landlord’s wider adherence to its hate crime policy and warrant a wider order. It is ordered that the landlord should complete a case review. The review must be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by the investigation. Compensation and apology remedies have also been ordered.
The landlord identified that the resident’s front garden fence was incorrectly placed because it was within the boundary of the resident’s home. Had the fence been placed at the boundary directly between the resident’s and neighbour’s homes, the engineer would not have had cause to enter the neighbour’s garden.
Although there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could determine when the front garden fence had first been placed in that location, it is reasonable to conclude that it had been there for many years. This is because, in her correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that she had only begun to experience problems when the neighbour had moved in several years earlier. The landlord informed the resident that it was responsible for maintaining and repairing the garden fence. It further explained that it was for the resident and the neighbour to relocate the garden fence.
Although the Ombudsman acknowledges that it would be desirable to the resident for the landlord to move the front garden fence, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that it was under any obligation to do so. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the front garden fence and a process for arranging access for contractors in future. Given the apparent breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the neighbour, this could provide a more timely resolution and prevent a further deterioration in the relationship between the parties.
The evidence indicates that the landlord carried out further investigations of the second incident, which included obtaining statements from the resident and the neighbour.
The resident and the neighbour each alleged that the other party was responsible for the damage to the resident’s drainpipe. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, the landlord explained that it was unable to determine who was responsible for the damage. It therefore decided to close its ASB case regarding this incident. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this. The evidence indicates that the landlord repaired the drainpipe promptly. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
As the call on 29 April 2022 between the resident and the landlord was not on its customer contact centre line, the call was not recorded. This is not a shortfall in the landlord’s service. However, a written summary of the call should have been documented by the landlord. This has not been provided to the resident or the Ombudsman. It therefore appears that a written summary was not recorded by the landlord. This is clearly a recurring problem for the landlord.
Strong record keeping practices are core to good landlord services. It is therefore ordered that the landlord should review its record keeping practice. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on record keeping is available to read online. It demonstrated that poor knowledge and information management by landlords was causing detriment to residents and impeding the Ombudsman’s work. This damages the sector’s reputation and erodes trust with residents. The landlord should confirm that it has taken steps to implement Recommendation 7: ‘Develop organisational key data recording standard requirements that will ensure good records that support the business and demonstrate compliance with national standards’. This should set out the minimum standard to which the landlord’s staff must enter data in the various databases owned by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is best practice that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code also specifies what the Ombudsman expects landlords’ complaint responses to detail.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process. The landlord was required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of a complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The evidence indicates that the resident raised complaints on:
1. 28 January 2022
2. 3 May 2022
3. 18 May 2022.
The evidence also indicates that the resident asked the landlord to provide complaint responses on at least 6 occasions between 8 February and 27 July 2022, which should not have been necessary.
The evidence indicates that the landlord made a telephone call to the resident on 9 March 2022. The landlord’s notes of that telephone call record that it offered the resident £50 compensation for the difficulties she experienced in reporting ASB. It also recorded that the resident was satisfied with this outcome. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up this telephone call with its offer to the resident in writing, or ever paid the compensation offered.
This was a failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust written record of complaints that are received and landlords’ responses. This is because written records provide an audit trail and make it possible to verify that landlords have acted in a way which is consistent with their own policies and the Code.
Given that this contact with the resident is an incomplete, hearsay, and subjective record, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be a formal complaint response by the landlord. Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the resident was informed of her right to escalate her complaint during this telephone call. This was a further failure by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022, which was 125 working days after the resident raised her first complaint. This was not appropriate as it was far outside of the landlord’s policy. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was not appropriate, because it did not provide the resident with any information about the Ombudsman, or her right to escalate her complaint. This was a further significant failure by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 August 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 August 2022, which was 14 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it upheld the resident’s complaint. However, it did not explain specifically which aspects of the resident’s complaint it had upheld, nor did it explain its reasons for this. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to manage complaints without the involvement of the Ombudsman. This includes clearly explaining to residents the reasons for the conclusions that landlords make. This was a failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. Given the extent of the complaint handling failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer of redress was inadequate.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. The resident has expended considerable time and effort in progressing her complaint with the landlord, which should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate the resident for the complaint-handling failings identified in this report, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the shortfalls identified in this investigation. The apology should be provided by a senior member of landlord staff.
2. Pay the resident £800 In compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £450 for its shortfalls in handling ASB and the distress and inconvenience caused (this is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £50).
  2. £350 for the complaint handling failures and the distress and inconvenience caused (this is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offers of £150).
3. Complete a case review. The review must be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by the investigation. The landlord should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 12 weeks. The landlord is also required to report the outcome of this case review to its Governing Board alongside its Resident Services Board. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
  1. Consideration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including:

(1) its initial failure to log the resident’s reports;

(2) its failure to complete a risk assessment;

(3) its failure to formulate a written action plan;

(4) its failure to assess the resident’s vulnerability or safeguarding needs;

(5) its failure to refer the resident to support services; and

(6) its failure to explore intervention actions other than mediation;

Consideration of its handling of other hate crime/hate related incident cases in the last six months to wider inform its review. If shortfalls in its adherence to its hate crime policy are identified, it should consider providing an apology and redress to affected residents, where appropriate.
Consideration of its staff’s training needs on its hate crime and hate related incident policy.
Consideration of its hate crime and hate related incident reporting route for telephony. The landlord should review what steps can be taken to ensure future reports are correctly logged and residents are offered appropriate support. The landlord should also consider if improvements can be made to its recording of hate crime/hate related incidents/ASB and its staff training to avoid the need for victims to recount previous incidents.
Consideration of its record keeping practices with regard to logging written records of telephone calls with residents. The landlord should confirm that it has taken steps to implement Recommendation 7 from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management: ‘Develop organisational key data recording standard requirements that will ensure good records that support the business and demonstrate compliance with national standards’.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Contact the resident to discuss the position of the front garden fence and access for contractors. The landlord should keep a written record of the discussion and write to the resident and her neighbour to confirm what action, if any, it intends to take. It should also detail a clear process for the resident to arrange access when required and confirm that her neighbour has been informed of this process.
2. Consider reimbursing the resident’s CCTV camera and installation costs in line with its commitment to support victims to make improvements to the security of their homes (the resident is expected to provide the landlord with proof of the costs they incurred).