Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202202655)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202655

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman 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(j) of the Scheme, it is considered that the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) set out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) and for emergency housing under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 respectively.
In the circumstances, the resident’s complaint regarding her request to be rehoused falls property within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO, who made a determination on 9 July 2023.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a two-bedroom first floor flat, together with her two sons, under a secure tenancy, which began on 14 December 2012.

Scope of the report

The investigation was hampered by the lack of provision of documents by the landlord. However, it provided to the resident a comprehensive chronology in its complaint review response of 18 August 2022. While the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, there were no evidence that the facts and events themselves were disputed. They appeared to be based on the landlord’s records. No discrepancy was identified. Moreover, the landlord acknowledged that it did not provide advice in July 2021 and that it was tardy in responding to the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s CCTV. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that it is reasonable to rely on that chronology as an account of the facts but will make an order in relation to the provision of documents to the Ombudsman for the purposes of our future investigations.
On 9 July 2023, the LGSCO made a determination on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of domestic violence. The findings addressed the landlord’s delay in providing advice to the resident in July 2021. The LGSCO also made findings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s handling of ASB and the landlord’s complaint handling.
Paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) which gives the Ombudsman his investigatory powers, states as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
Nevertheless, this investigation will consider any aspects which were not considered by the LGSCO.
The aspect about the CCTV remains in scope of this investigation as does the landlord’s offer of “target hardening”.
The evidence showed that, in 2019, the resident made a complaint about how the landlord addressed the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint in July 2019. That complaint was not referred to this service. Paragraph 42 (b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they had exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. In the circumstances, and given that the events pre-2019 are historical, while the context of the resident’s complaint is noted, this investigation will address events after mid-2019.

Legal and policy framework

A term of the tenancy agreement headed “nuisance and ASB” stated that the resident must not harass, intimidate, threaten to use or use violence towards anyone in the local area. If the resident caused nuisance and/or annoyance, or behaved in an anti-social way, the landlord could take legal action which could result in an injunction and/or possession proceedings.
The landlord’s ASB policy defined ASB as “conduct which is capable of causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaged in a lawful activity in the locality”. Examples include verbal abuse, harassment, and intimidation. This reflects the definition of ASB under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
On receiving a report of ASB, the landlord would open a ASB case and create an action plan. Legal action would only be discussed as and when it became necessary. If agreed in the action plan, the alleged perpetrator would be informed that a formal complaint has been made and what the nature of the complaint was. The alleged perpetrator would have the chance to respond to the complaints made about them. The housing officer would then need to evaluate the information provided by both parties in order to determine what to do next.
The landlord was to assess the person’s vulnerability with the use of a specific form. There was a detailed procedure including a proscribed paper and electronic file. Evidence could also be obtained through the Police. The landlord could approach neighbouring residents to enquire whether they were experiencing any similar incidents of ASB as those reported. Where the housing officer was satisfied that ASB was “actually occurring”, actions the landlord could take included sending the perpetrator warning letters. It could write to the alleged perpetrators advising them that a ASB complaint had been received and arrange a conversation or to seek their co-operation in resolving the complaint by acting, or not acting, in a certain manner. In low-level cases and instances of neighbour disputes, formal warning letters sometimes only served to make matters worse, particularly where the alleged perpetrator had not had the opportunity to have their say. It could arrange for the perpetrator to sign an “acceptable behaviour contract” (ABC), which is a formal, written agreement made between an individual, the landlord, and the Police. Only serious cases were referred to the ASB team where there was enough evidence to support legal action against the perpetrator or where ASB was occurring but there was difficulty in obtaining evidence.
An emergency or a management transfer could be considered as an option to resolve a case. Generally, management transfers would only be agreed circumstances such as threats to life, “extreme” ASB, or where there were vulnerable witnesses involved. Tenants could also be advised to make an application thorough the housing register to be assessed “in the normal way” if the anti-social behaviour was, for example, having a negative impact upon their health.
Measures (“target hardening”) could be put in place to improve the safety of the victim in their home and manage their vulnerability. These could include the provision of a safe room, increasing door and window security, and security lighting.
The ASB policy stated that there was a domestic abuse policy but none was provided to this service or identified on the landlord’s website. Only general guidance was identified.
The complaints policy set out a two-stage procedure. A Stage 1 response was to be concluded within 20 days, while the response at Stage 2 was to be concluded within 15 days.

Chronology

The landlord’s complaint response of 16 August 2022 set out a chronology as follows:
1. The resident had made a complaint in 2019 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbours. It was responded to in July 2019 at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The landlord had concluded that there was insufficient evidence that she had been subject to harassment by her neighbour, and both parties had been given “words of advice” about their behaviour by the police and the landlord.
2. In addition to reports of harassment, the resident had reported that the neighbour’s CCTV covered communal areas. On 15 January 2020, the report was logged as an “estate issue”.
According to a file note, on 11 February 2020, the landlord gave a verbal warning to the neighbours, and offered mediation and sent new diary sheets to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response continued as follows:
1. A housing officer visited the neighbour on 2 February 2020 and made enquires with the police who reported it had not received any further contact. The landlord sought legal advice internally which was provided on 30 March 2020 that any CCTV would have to comply with the Information Commissioner’s Office conditions and recommended writing to the neighbour to explain this and request evidence that they were complying with these conditions. The landlord did so on 7 April 2020 and chased the request on 11 May 2020. The neighbour replied on the following day apparently giving reassurancesthat he was compliant with the rules.
2. An ASB case was opened on 5 May 2020.
3. On 10 May 2020, there was “an incident” between the resident and her neighbours. The neighbour alleged that the resident had assaulted him and the resident reported there were “ongoing issues”.
4. On 30 May 2020, the resident reported an incident of the neighbour “acting aggressively”. Both incidents were investigated by the police, no further action was taken and “words of advice” were provided to both parties.
5. In June 2020 the housing officer was asked to visit the neighbour to tell them that the CCTV needed to be removed.
6. There were no further reports till 8 July 2021 when the resident reported that her ex-partner was the in the neighbour’s property. He was drunk and aggressive, threatened to kick the door in and refused to leave the vicinity of the block. The resident reported that this incident was sorted out “amicably” with her ex-partner. She also reported that her neighbours had let him stay in their flat after he had been removed by the police. However, a few days later, her ex-partner alleged that her neighbours had spoken to him about her. She then blocked his number.
7. The landlord followed up with the resident on 9 and 13 July 2021.
8. On 15 July 2021, the neighbour made a counter-complaint regarding the events of the 7 July 2021. The landlord made a request for information from the Police on 15 July 2021 and 20 August 2021.
9. The housing register had reported to the landlord on 5 August 2021 that following the incident of 7 July 2021, the resident was considering applying for an injunction against her ex-partner, and wanted her banding (priority status) on the housing register reviewed.
According to an email exchange between the parties, the court made a non-molestation (“the Order”) on 13 August 2021. The terms of the Order included that the resident’s ex-partner was forbidden from using or threatening violence against her and her children, harassing or contacting her, entering her road, commenting on social media or having a third party do so on his behalf. The Order would expire on 13 August 2022. If the ex-partner disobeyed the order, he could be arrested and committed to prison.
The resident sent a copy of the Order to the landlord on 16 August 2021, stating she hoped that the Order would resolve matters with the neighbours and her ex-partner and requesting the flat be protected, especially the letterbox and front door. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the Order and made a “target-hardening“ referral. The resident had informed the landlord that she was aware the landlord could not change the communal door with a key system. The ex-partner did not have keys or a fob to access the building. The resident reported that her ex-partner had continued to harass the resident after being removed from her address by the Police. The nature of risk was “DA” and there was no referral to MARAC. The landlord would assess the security of, and consider security measures for, the property.
The chronology in the landlord’s complaint response continued as follows:
1. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 August 2021 to arrange an “interview” in relation to the resident’s and neighbour’s allegations. The resident reported that the neighbour threatened her son. On 26 August 2021, she stated she would get back to the landlord once she had a support worker and the following day, she reported that she had not heard back from the landlord. The landlord next contacted the resident on 17 September 2021. The landlord said it would check if they were dummy cameras but that if they were live recording cameras, they would need to be removed or repositioned.
2. The landlord contacted the neighbour in September 2021 making enquiries about the CCTV. The landlord sought further legal advice and guidance. Enforcement action would depend on whether the use of the CCTV met the guidelines for personal use of CCTV or whether it was causing nuisance. The landlord visited the neighbour on 1 November 2021 and viewed the footage. The CCTV was overlooking a public pathway and communal areas. The flat block had been blacked out so was not visible. The landlord advised it must be pointed at the car park, and nowhere else, and that it must not be pointed to cover the block entrance and for more of the lens be blacked out so that it only covered their car. It discussed the complaints received regarding the neighbour approaching the resident’s son and his friends, which allegations were denied.
3. On 3 November 2021, the resident declined the landlord’s offer of mediation as she did not feel that mediation would resolve the situation. Both parties were asked to avoid each other.
4. There were no further reports until 28 February 2022, when the resident reported that issues were still ongoing and that she had arranged for social services to move her son out of the property because of the harassment. There was also an incident when a neighbour’s shopping bag hit her hand as she left the building. There had been no further reported incidents regarding her neighbour since March 2022.
5. On 2 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour’s CCTV had been removed.
6. On 24 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to ask for any updates. The resident stated that there had been no further incidents with the neighbours. The ASB case was placed on hold.
According to correspondence from the housing register team, the local authority refused the resident’s rebandingapplicationon 5 April 2022. This was also unsuccessful at its statutory review of 15 June 2022. Her next steps would be to make an application to the court for a reviewof the local authority’s decision (a judicial review).
The resident wrote to the landlord. The email provided to this service did not include its date but from the context, it is reasonable to conclude it was sent in May 2022. It stated as follows:
1. She was concerned about having no protection against her ex-partner which was “very dangerous especially with his involvement with the neighbours”. She had been referred for counselling. On 17 November 2021, the neighbour had made a “false allegation of drug dealing” to social services about her son, that she was only made aware of in January 2022. The CCTV had been directed at her son and his friends. The neighbour had been filming other residents. The police were investigating a “recent hallway incident” in March 2022. She wanted, and felt she needed, to move as a result.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It was writing at the request of this service. The Ombudsman’s letter had advised that she wanted to make a complaint about how the landlord had responded to the resident’s banding application and how the landlord had handled reported ASB.
2. It set out the response from the housing register. It explained that the Housing Ombudsman did not deal with complaints regarding transfers and allocations, which were dealt with by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (the “LGSCO”).
3. It had not received a “formal” complaint from her about how her reports of ASB had been handled but it understood it referred to her reports of being filmed by her neighbour.
4. It had noted the removal of the CCTV and there had been no further incidents.
5. It explained how to make a complaint and for her to explain her reasons for dissatisfaction.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 July 2022. Its letter of 24 June 2022 had not addressed the domestic violence/harassment issue. It was more serious than ASB. She queried that the landlord deemed that “a few bolts on the door” was sufficient protection for her. She was concerned as the Order was due to expire. The landlord was not taking this situation seriously and nor followed any procedures. She was expected to make “another” complaint.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord noted a report of the neighbour shouting at her outside the block. The landlord was due to visit at the police’s request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 July 2022 with its Stage 1 complaint response as follows:
1. The landlord had not referred to her ex-partner as a medium risk, as she had thought, but the housing register team had done so. The Police had assessed her as a “standard risk”. While she had reported breaches of the Order, no further action had been taken as the breaches were not made out. The police had found no evidence that the neighbours had passed information about her to her ex-partner.
2. Its domestic violence policy stated that before any target hardening work was carried out, there had to be a written referral from the Police Domestic Violence Unit or a support worker. It, however, make a referral on receipt of the Order.
3. The policy also stated that it would offer support including advice about her rights and possible legal remedies open to her which could include advice on seeking a non-molestation order. That advice was not provided following her email of 8 July 2021.
4. It explained that ASB included harassment.
5. It partially upheld her complaint on the basis that “an HLS1 was not taken” following the initial contact in December 2019 regarding the CCTV. It also considered that more advice could have been given following her contact in July 2021.
6. It apologised for the omissions.
7. It would deliver refresher advice and guidance to staff when dealing with these issues.
The resident sent an email, the copy of which provided to this service was undated, but from the context appeared to have been sent in July 2022.
1. She referred to her report that the neighbour shouted at her at the front of the block. She reported that other residents had informed her of incidents.
2. She stated that, in November 2021, the neighbours had made false allegations about her to social services that her son was a drug dealer.
3. She said it was incorrect that there had been no reports since.
4. She said it was not true that social services moved her son out because he was not getting on with her. He was moved for his safety. She referred to a child in need assessment.
There was an undated extract from an unidentified document (but presumably the child in need assessment) stating that the resident’s son was unable to return to his mother’s address, given the Order and concerns about domestic abuse.
The resident wrote again on 27 July 2022 as follows:
1. The ASB had been first reported in 2015.
2. There had been a number of incidents.
3. The cameras had been allowed to remain in place for a long period.
4. She disputed that there was no evidence of ASB or domestic abuse. She considered that the behaviour she reported constituted harassment, rather than ASB.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord wrote to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s email of 30 July 2022 and escalated her complaint. It characterised her complaint about being about the banding application and her wanting the landlord to respond to the reports of ASB in accordance with its policy.
The resident replied the same day stating that the landlord’s summary was not correct.
1. Her complaint was that the landlord had classed “stalking, harassment and domestic violence” as ASB.
2. It had stated that it had no evidence of ASB despite sending the Court Order on 16 August 2021.
3. The landlord had ignored her emails.
4. The harassment from the neighbours had been ongoing since 2015.
5. The landlord had previously ignored her complaints about the neighbour’s “illegal” CCTV. She was told they were “dummy” cameras.
6. The neighbour and her ex-partner had threatened her son. The neighbour had made false allegations to the Police, council and social services about her.
7. When the neighbour made complaints about her, it was classed as harassment but when she did, it was classed as ASB.
8. Other neighbours had complained. Her son had had to move out.
9. The landlord considered that “some bolts” on the door were sufficient to address the situation.
10. She had had to make another complaint.
11. The landlord considered it acceptable for her and her family to live at the property.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. Its investigation set out in the attached report had concluded that there had been insufficient evidence to enable the landlord to take legal action against her neighbour for harassment.
2. It agreed with the findings at Stage 1 response that her report about her neighbour’s CCTV was not dealt with through its ASB procedure and that insufficient advice was provided when she first reported domestic violence.
3. The delay in ensuring that her neighbours CCTV was removed was excessive. Refresher training was being arranged for the relevant staff on those issues.
The report set out a chronology of events referred to in this investigation. It also stated that, in line with its procedure, the landlord should have opened an ASB case on receipt of the report of the CCTV and one was not opened until 5 May 2021. Steps to ensure that her neighbour’s CCTV was removed should have been taken more quickly.
The LGSCO’s investigation report dated 9 July 2023, stated as follows:
1. It noted that the landlord accepted that it failed to give comprehensive advice in July 2021, which “was fault”. It provided advice in early August, by which point the resident had already applied for the Order and so she was “clearly aware of her legal options”. In the circumstances an apology was a sufficient remedy for any injustice caused by the delay.
2. Although target hardening advice was given in August 2021, the work was not completed until early October 2021. This was a tenancy management issue, therefore any complaint about this would be for the Housing Ombudsman to determine.
3. The landlord assessed the reports of ASB made as a “level 2” neighbour dispute, which meant it had been addressed by a tenancy officer rather than an ASB officer. It would expect the landlord to consider whether it should exercise its general ASB powers and seek advice from ASB officers, as needed. In this case, the Council discussed the situation with the Police, and decided there was not sufficient evidence of ASB to take formal action using its general ASB powers. It had carried out a joint site visit with the Police and tried to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident. It therefore took the action that it would have expected and there was no evidence of fault.
4. It considered that the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV camera was a housing management role issue and, again, this was for the Housing Ombudsman to determine.
5. It did not consider theresident’s concerns under its complaints process until the Housing Ombudsman Service contacted it in June 2022. It had responded fully at Stage 1 of its process in July, and at Stage 2 in mid-August 2022. There was no fault in the complaints process.
6. It had found fault leading to “personal injustice”. The landlord had already apologised for any injustice caused by the short delay in providing comprehensive advice when the resident reported domestic abuse in July 2021.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman finds that it reasonable that the landlord did not address the pre-2019 issues, given it had provided a final response to the resident’s previous complaint in July 2019, although the landlord should bear in mind any historical context of a complaint.
It is noted that the main thrust of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not offer the resident a move to another property. It is noted that in accordance with its policy, the landlord can offer a management move outside its allocation policy, however this only applied to a “significant and/or immediate need to move”. There was no evidence the landlord ever considered this. However, as unpleasant and worrying matters were for the resident, and while it was accepted ASB and domestic abuse had occurred, there was no evidence that the incidents had reached those extreme circumstances in the period of the complaint (2019 onwards) or following the incident in July 2021.
There was no evidence that the landlord denied receiving the Order, indeed it acknowledged its receipt on 16 August 2021 and as a result, made a “target hardening” referral. The measures offered were in line with its policy and in line with the resident’s request. There was a three-month delay in implementing those measures, which the landlord neither explained or acknowledged. There was, however, no evidence of a significant impact on the resident as a result and therefore the Ombudsman does not find service failure in that regard.
While the landlord stated it would check if there were “dummy cameras”, there was no evidence that it believed or had concluded that was the case. While it acted appropriately in assessing the scope and use of the cameras, there was a delay in doing so. While the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay, this was only in relation to a few months in not opening an ASB case. While it appeared to establish that the CCTV was being used appropriately, there was a lack of ongoing monitoring.
The delays in assessing the CCTV and subsequently removing the CCTV being removed was significant, even taking into account that at one point, the landlord was satisfied with the way the CCTV was being used. Given the impact of the delay on the resident, her frustration and distress from December 2019 to March 2022, and given the historical context of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not consider that an apology and staff training, while reasonable in themselves, constituted reasonable redress. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in this regard.
While it acknowledged that it had failed to provide advice about domestic abuse in July 2021, the landlord did not assess its later responses. The resident reported her concerns in May and July 2022 about not feeling protected when the Order was due to expire. The landlord had made enquiries of the Police as to the level of risk, which opinion it was entitled to accept. The resident had reported that she was receiving counselling and support. However, there was no evidence that the landlord considered offering support and guidance in 2022, such as suggesting she seed legal advice about making an application to renew the Court Order. While generally responsive, there was an unreasonable delay in contacting the resident in August 2021 to September 2021. While there was no evidence of actual risk, and the resident’s focus was on a move, the resident’s concerns and her report that it was advised that her son should not return home, should have been sufficient to arouse a response from the landlord. While there was no practical impact on the resident, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have demonstrated some concern about this serious issue and check that the resident was receiving all possible assistance. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure. Again, there was no significant practical impact of the failings, in particular as the resident’s focus was on a move, but the landlord should have considered reassuring the resident of its support and that it recognised the importance of the issues.
It was reasonable that the landlord classed harassment as ASB. This is because in accordance with legislation, the landlord’s tenancy agreement as well as its policy and industry practice, harassment is classed as ASB. The crucial point is how a landlord addresses any reports.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s approach to ASB from a housing management point of view. The Ombudsman recognises the challenges a landlord faces when neighbours make allegations and counter allegations, and that there is a need to be even-handed and not to escalate a dispute. It was reasonable that it discussed the neighbour’s allegations with her, as frustrating as that would have been for her.
While the landlord’s decision not to escalate the ASB case and pursue legal remedies was reasonable, the landlord could have considered approaches, in addition to mediation. The landlord reasonably opened an ASB case, responded to the resident’s reports and made enquiries from the neighbour. While the landlord should not take denials at face-value, but remain an open-mind, it can be difficult for landlord to make a judgement about what did or did not occur. While the landlord would not send warnings letters unless there was evidence of ASB, the landlord could have considered writing formally to an alleged perpetrator, setting out what is not acceptable behaviour. There was no evidence that it made enquiries of other neighbours, despite the resident giving instances. This gave the sense of a lack of pro-activity. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure.
The Ombudsman has not made any further observations regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it is noted the use of terms and “jargon” such as “target hardening”, “HLS1” forms, “MARAC”. The landlord should avoid the use of terms that, while they were explained in its policies, and may be familiar to housing professionals, they are not in ordinary use. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused was outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the landlord took steps in regard to the resident’s reports of ASB and the neighbour’s use of CCTV, it acknowledged its failures in relation to its delays in addressing the CCTV and providing guidance about domestic abuse but it was not sufficiently pro-active in relation to the CCTV and did not demonstrate support in relation to the domestic abuse.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £350 within 4 weeks.
2. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of this report, provide assurances to the Ombudsman that it will provide comprehensive documents for the Ombudsman’s investigations, for example include its electronic and paper records of ASB and what steps it will take to ensure it will do so.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider publishing its domestic abuse policy on its website.
2. The landlord should avoid the use of terms with its residents that, while they were explained in its policies, and may be familiar to housing professionals, are not in ordinary use.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of this report.