Ocean Housing Limited (202318909)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318909

Ocean Housing Limited

28 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports concerning antisocial behaviour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3-bedroom property with her partner and children. Her tenancy began on 15 January 2018.
The resident is the neighbour of Ms A and Mr A. She has made reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about Ms A and Mr A. Ms A is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is one property away from Ms A’s and is therefore, not adjoined.
The landlord is aware from historical records of the impact on the resident’s wellbeing but there is no recorded diagnosed vulnerability.
The tenancy agreement states tenants will not erect buildings without the written consent of the landlord. The agreement also states tenants, their household and visitors will not cause ASB. Examples of ASB include making noise which can be heard outside the property or disrupting the peaceful occupation of another person’s premises. The agreement states the landlord can apply for possession of a property if a tenancy obligation has been breached or nuisance or annoyance has been caused to residing in the locality.
The landlord operates an ASB policy, which states all ASB reports will be treated seriously, and it will adopt a ‘person centred approach’. It sets out a timeframe for responding to ASB reports. For example, low risk complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Complainants will be given regular updates of ASB cases and kept proactively informed of its response. Tenants are expected to report noise related ASB to environmental health. It also states repeated incidents which may not appear serious when treated in isolation, will be investigated if it is having a harmful impact on a person. The policy sets out the methods available to it to resolve ASB (eg warnings, mediation, and legal action).
The landlord’s compliments and complaints policy states complaints relate to a service failure or customers have waited longer than published timescales. If complaints cannot be resolved at the first point of contact, it operates a 2 stage complaints process with all complaints acknowledged within 2 working days of being received. It aims to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out how, when, and why it will pay compensation to a resident. Before making a payment, other remedies will also be considered (eg apology, action plan to put things right, policy review). The landlord has guidance to decide a suitable level of compensation if a payment is to be made.
The landlord’s service standard commitments state it will simplify ways to raise issues, make complaints and seek redress. It sets out a timeframe for dealing with a range of matters from ASB depending on the seriousness of it to responding to letters and emails.

Scope of investigation

The resident made a separate complaint concerning ASB to this Service, which has already been decided upon under case 202112011. Case 202112011 was based on a complaint which concluded on 1 October 2021. The events that led to and which predate case 202112011 have not been investigated here but will be referenced for contextual purposes, if appropriate.
This investigation focuses on events from 20 August 2021 as a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s management of reported ASB and breaches of tenancy obligations (eg noise and a wood structure). These issues did not form the basis of the previous complaint, or the matters decided upon under case 202112011.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”

Summary of events

Events prior to internal complaint procedure and concerning matters in case 202112011

The resident has made reports of ASB about Ms A and Mr A since 2018 concerning noise, littering, cannabis use, intimidating and threatening behaviour. The landlord has addressed the reports of ASB with Ms A and Mr A by way of correspondence, calls, and meetings. Other action included mediation between Ms and the resident in January 2020. On 12 July 2021, an incident of ASB towards the resident and her family by Mr A resulted in his conviction of a public order offence. He was also subject to a restraining order.
An agreed behaviour contract (ABC) was signed by Ms A on 28 July 2021 for 6 months. Ms A agreed her household would not make noise, audible outside the property (eg arguing, door slamming and loud music).
In July 2021, the resident made a formal complaint (previous complaint) about the landlord’s handling of ASB, including the 12 July 2021 incident. The resident also activated a community trigger for a ASB case review. The resident informed the landlord of additional concerns about noise and a wooden garden structure on 20 August 2021 during the previous complaint process. It confirmed in its stage 2 response, issued 6 September 2021, it would be investigating these issues and writing to her separately about them.
The complaints process, which was a 3 stage process at the time, concluded on 1 October 2021. Its decision included an apology for service failures. In its stage 3 response it asked the resident to continue to log and record any ASB incidents and assured her it would:
1. Take her reports seriously.
2. Take “a complainant centred approach to any subsequent investigation”.
3. Consider enforcing the ABC and taking tenancy enforcement action if the restraining order was enforced due to proven breaches of it.
4. Ensure “we improve our communication on what we can and cannot do in any circumstances presented.”

Events within jurisdiction

On 15 October 2021, the landlord served a notice of seeking possession (notice) on Ms A based on noise, ASB and associated tenancy breaches.
The resident reported noise related ASB by Ms A and Mr A by email, call, video, and noise recording application on a regular basis to the landlord from October 2021 onwards. She has reported the noise nuisance is daily. On one occasion on 9 November 2021, the resident submitted 7 noise recordings within 5 minutes. The reports have included shouting, swearing, crying, car horn beeping, motorbike revving.
The resident’s other neighbours have reported noise and ASB by Ms A and Mr A in the form of shouting and motorbike revving by submitting noise recordings, diary logs, email, and call. On 19 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged noise recordings by a neighbour saying they were “good quality”.
In communication between 25 October and 10 November 2021, on two occasions, the resident asked for an update of intended legal action against Ms A. On one occasion she said one of her neighbours told her a notice was served on Ms A. On 11 November 2021, the landlord said her noise recordings were sent to its legal team and she would be contacted when the case was ready to be progressed.
The resident raised new issues with the landlord from 20 August 2021 about noise and a wooden structure. Up until November 2021, the resident raised concerns about a wooden structure in Ms A’s garden on 5 occasions with the landlord by email and telephone. Photographs of the structure were sent to it. The resident has described it as a wooden structure attached to Ms A’s rear boundary fencing. Some of the fencing had been removed and Mr A had “constructed gym equipment” onto it. She had concerns about the safety of the structure as it was not built securely; consisted of planks of wood with exposed nails; was vulnerable to high winds; and was a risk to the public and vehicles in the nearby carpark. On 19 November 2021, the resident raised a broad ranging formal complaint by telephone, including an element relating to the structure. She stated she had not had a response after sending communication about the structure and wanted “reassurance this structure is safe”.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident saying it had asked its property services team to investigate the structure. This Service has not been provided with evidence of this request.
In its wider stage 1 response, issued on 3 December 2021, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the structure as it should have responded sooner and apologised for this. It confirmed it would “be checking on the structure”.
Following the landlord’s request on 8 December 2021, the resident provided her consent for it to share her contact details with its legal team to enable her witness statement to be drafted.
In an internal email, on 8 December 2021 the landlord accepted the ASB from Ms A’s property was “having a negative impact on a number of neighbours mental health, enjoyment of their own home”.
A home visit took place with Ms A on 21 December 2021 to complete a garden and property inspection. We have not seen evidence related to the structure being considered during the inspection.
On 22 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord saying she had not heard from the legal team and still had safety concerns about the structure. She also mentioned the daily noise disturbance.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord emailed its assets team asking if it had inspected the structure.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident:
1. It said it contacted its legal team as it not heard from them since chasing them before Christmas 2021.
2. It encouraged her to continue reporting the noise and as an alternative to the noise application, it recommended making diary notes or emailing details to it as they occurred.
3. It had asked its assets team to provide an update.
On 11 January 2022, another neighbour informed the landlord, during a quiet period for Mr A and Ms A, “it’s been a nightmare 3 years I’ve had here”. On the following day, the landlord stated it would arrange for more diaries to be sent to the neighbour and encouraged them to continue submitting ASB logs.
In an internal email (copying in its assets team), on 13 January 2022, the landlord stated it would speak to Ms A about the structure to inform her she did not have permission for it and stop work on it. It also proposed a discussion with its legal team in the absence of an update despite 2 emails requesting one.
Following a request by the resident on 21 July 2021, a community trigger meeting took place on 20 January 2022, attended by the landlord, resident, police, and council’s ASB team. The meeting discussed the legal action including the gathering of statements. The landlord confirmed a legal meeting was due to take place.
During a visit with Ms A on 21 January 2022, a garden and property inspection took place. The structure was considered when the landlord noted it was unlikely to be a hazard. After sending photos of it to its property services, it decided no further action was required.
In an email on 24 January 2022, the landlord’s legal team changed its legal advice stating it no longer advised possession action, but rather a multi-agency meeting with Ms A to explore engagement. The landlord informed its legal team that while it had evidence from 2 neighbours, other than the R, and it wished to pursue injunctive action, it would arrange the multi-agency meeting with Ms A.
On 31 January 2022, following an internal meeting, the landlord discussed the multi-agency meeting with Ms A and its intention to inform the resident of the change of legal advice. The evidence confirms a letter was sent to the resident “to advise witness statements are not being produced currently following legal advice”. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter sent to her.
On 11 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update about the structure expressing safety concerns, stating 4 months had passed since it was first reported, and it had upheld her complaint in its stage 1 response of 3 December 2021. In terms of the legal update, she said she had received correspondence from it that it was not moving onto the “next stage but understand the need to ensure all case law is followed. I hope this additional task can be completed quickly and progress made”.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord’s legal team advised it should only consider injunctive action if Ms A failed to cooperate as the multi-agency meeting with Ms A was intended as an alternative to a formal route.
The resident sent another email to the landlord on 14 March 2022 stating:
1. She had not heard from it about her email of 11 February 2022.
2. 4 activities (20 February to 12 March 2022) submitted on the noise application log had not been responded to.
3. Mr A continued to intimidate her by making constant motorbike revving noises and parking a van outside her property.
4. She had not had an update on the structure.
A multi-agency meeting attended by the landlord, police and Ms A took place on 15 March 2022. It is understood noise nuisance and ASB were to be discussed. This Service has not seen the minutes.
On 16 March 2022, the landlord sent an internal email requesting a response be sent to the resident to reassure her that her reports had been received and placed on the system. This Service has not seen evidence of any response sent to the resident by it.
On 30 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. No responses had been received after her 11 February and 14 March 2022 emails.
2. The noise application logs had not been acknowledged.
3. Its service standards for responding to written correspondence had been breached. She set out feedback on its service standards and locating information on its website and policies.
4. No updates had been received about the structure despite assurances in a separate complaint response. She asked if the structure issue could be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 12 April 2022 as follows:
1. On receipt of the e-mail of 11th February 2022, it considered it was for information only, but accepted a response had been needed. It apologised for not replying.
2. It should have replied to the email of 14 March 2022 and apologised for not doing so.
3. The noise application logs should have been acknowledged and apologised for not doing so. Its housing officer was unaware that logs or recordings were acknowledged and therefore, this had been identified as a training issue and rectified.
4. It had visited Ms A in December 2021 and found no concerns about the structure and apologised for not updating the resident. To reassure her of any safety concerns, it had arranged for its property services team to visit Ms A’s property. It also confirmed following a no access visit to Ms A on 8 April, another visit was scheduled for 26 April 2022. It invited the resident to confirm if she still wanted to progress this issue to stage 2.
5. It had spoken to its officer about acknowledging emails in line with service standards. While it had not responded to the 2 emails, it said it had met with Ms A on 15 March 2022 and warned her about future tenancy breaches. It said no complaints had been received from other neighbours about noise and asked the resident to make noise recordings rather than noting issues. It also said it would struggle to prove Mr A was trying to intimidate the resident by parking outside her property.
6. It upheld her complaint as it had not contacted her within 10 days of her 2 emails in line with its service standards. Following her feedback the availability of information and her experience of its website, it had addressed this in a new website and smartphone application.
On 10 May 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in a call to the landlord stating there had been no contact by her housing officer since the stage 1 response. She said she had learned legal action was not being taken against Ms A and Mr A at stage 1. On 13 and 16 May 2022, the resident clarified she felt she should have been told earlier that possession proceedings would not be pursued and had insufficient explanation around the decision.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident confirming the garden structure had been inspected and was considered safe and not a risk to anyone.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 June 2022 as follows:
1. The stage 1 response had not committed to the housing officer contacting the resident but had given assurances that the service standard would be met. It set out individual ASB reports made by the resident in early May 2022, the action taken by its housing officer to the reports stating she had responded within service standard timescales. It did not uphold this complaint as it said it had not committed itself to the housing officer contacting her and she had appropriately responded to the resident’s contact with it.
2. Following a meeting with Ms A on 15 March 2022 and after taking legal advice, it had decided not to take possession proceedings. It accepted it should have updated the resident about this. It upheld the element of the complaint as it should have told her sooner and apologised for this.
In an email to the resident on 10 June 2022, the landlord confirmed it had listened to her motorbike revving recordings along with the Environmental Health Officer and the council’s ASB officer. The view shared by all three was the revving was a reasonable activity and would not be classed as ASB.
The resident informed us on 11 September 2023 that the resolution sought by her from the landlord is:
1. Where there have been service failures, whether its actions were are proportionate to the issues.
2. A review of communications failures.
3. Evidence of learning.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states low level ASB reports will be responded to within 10 days. The resident regularly reported noise issues and in winter 2021, it liaised closely with her about ASB reports. Legal action was being pursued during this period but by 24 January 2022, the landlord had received legal advice not to take possession action. While it would be entitled to rely on its legal advice and would not be expected to go against it, it would still be expected to provide the resident with a timely update and an explanation of its reasoning for not pursuing action.
The resident continued to submit reports of noise and ASB after the landlord had received legal advice about a change of approach. It failed to reasonably respond to her reports of noise within 10 days in line with its ASB policy. In her email of 14 March 2022, the resident said noise activities submitted from February 2022 had not been acknowledged. By failing to respond to reports of ASB, it breached its policy. It suggested internally on 16 March 2022 that she should be contacted to reassure her that her reports had been received. It was unreasonable when it failed to do so. It also missed an opportunity to build trust.
The landlord’s policy states it will take a ‘person centred approach’, repeated incidents can have a “harmful impact” on a person, and complaints will be taken seriously and resolved promptly. It also states levels of harm are established by completing risk assessments with complainants. The evidence shows 5 ‘actions’ were raised to complete risk assessments from October 2021 to March 2022, but it is unclear if the assessments were completed with the resident. The comments on the ‘action’ for October 2021 states it was a “vulnerable case where a risk has been identified” and December 2021 states the risk was high due to the resident’s concerns and ongoing noise issues. The breakdown of assessment points is not available, so it is difficult to gauge harm levels. As the resident was assessed a vulnerable case and high risk, and as formal proceedings were not being taken, it would have been reasonable for it to have taken steps to work more closely with her.
The evidence shows the resident was complaining about the revving from summer 2021. Following on from the complaints process, the issue of the revving was considered and responded to on 10 June 2022 when it confirmed the revving was not classed as ASB. The landlord’s investigation of this issue was appropriate as it considered recordings of the revving along with the Environmental Health Officer and the council’s ASB officer. While it was able to take this view on this issue having investigated it, the delay of at least 8 months in addressing this issue mismanaged the resident’s expectations which would cause time and trouble and further distress.
The landlord’s policy states it will provide regular updates to residents on their ASB cases. The evidence shows the resident requesting 3 updates from it from October 2021 to December 2021 about legal action including after she was told by another neighbour that Ms A had received a notice. From December 2021, the resident was expecting to provide a witness statement to its legal team to support legal action. It is clear from the evidence, the landlord was itself struggling to obtain an update from its legal team, but by the end of January 2022, it was advised not to pursue possession action and was considering alternative ASB remedies.
While this Service has not seen the letter informing the resident of the change of direction, it has seen an internal email on 31 January 2022 about letting her know a witness statement was “currently” not needed following legal advice. She said she was unaware legal action was not being taken until stage 1 of the complaints process in April 2022. The landlord unreasonably took 4 months to inform her that legal action was no longer being pursued. By failing to update the resident about an important change of direction for the handling of her ASB case, and by not doing so promptly, it breached its policy. This failure could not but have caused adverse impact and detriment to the resident. It is noted the landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its failings in not telling her sooner.
The landlord’s service standards set out a timeframe for responding to “lower risk” complaints. Its service standards say it will deal with correspondence within 10 working days. A substantive response was received in April 2022 to the resident’s emails of 11 February and 14 March 2022. This meant she waited 2 months for a reply to the February email and 1 month to the March email. It is vitally important that a resident can rely on prompt responses from its landlord to ensure any issues raised are being addressed proactively and seriously. The landlord’s failure was unacceptable and a breach of its policies. The landlord has apologised for not replying to the emails during the internal complaints procedure. In addition, it said it used her feedback on its service standards in its website and smartphone application.
The tenancy agreement states tenants will not erect buildings without the written consent of the landlord. The ASB policy gives garden issues as an example of ASB. The resident regularly reported her safety concerns about a wooden structure in Ms A’s garden from since August 2021 but the evidence does not show her reports were adequately considered or her concerns addressed. Following a formal complaint on 19 November 2021, the landlord asked its property services team to investigate. It apologised in its stage 1 response on 3 December 2021 for not responding sooner about the structure and confirmed it would check it. Despite an unreasonable delay of 3 months from when the structure was first reported, the landlord had an opening to build trust with the resident and proactively resolve the issue.
The evidence does not show if the landlord considered the structure during a garden inspection on 21 December 2021. The evidence shows it took 6 weeks to follow up its original request to its property services team. The stage 1 response of 12 April 2022 stated it had no concerns about the structure during a visit to Ms A in December 2021 and apologised for not updating her. The evidence does not support the structure being considered during the visit, so the resident was given inaccurate information. The evidence shows the structure was first considered during a visit on 21 January 2022 when it was not viewed as a hazard and the landlord decided no further action was required. Thereafter, it failed to proactively update the resident in January 2022 of its decision and by doing so it would have saved her the time and trouble of seeking updates in February and March 2022.
Following its stage 1 response in April 2022, appropriate steps were taken for an inspection by the landlord’s property services team to alleviate the resident’s safety concerns, which included it being made of planks of wood with exposed nails; its vulnerability to high winds; and risk to the public and vehicles in the nearby carpark. Over 6 months after making her formal complaint in November 2021, and 9 months after it was first reported, the landlord confirmed the structure was considered safe and not a risk to anyone. The landlord unreasonably delayed in taking steps to resolve the issue and it breached its ASB policy by failing to promptly address the resident’s concerns and updating her.
The resident has described the impact on her of the ASB. She has described being intimidated by Mr A, who she felt was ignoring the restraining order. At times, she said she had not felt it worth reporting incidents of ASB due to the lack of responses by the landlord. In a call with the landlord, on 21 July 2022, she said she felt “defeated”. The resident has reported the noise nuisance has caused sleep disruption and distress to her and her family. She was worried by the safety of the structure, which she said “bits came off” during bad weather. The resident was put to the time, trouble, inconvenience, of pursuing her ASB through the landlord’s complaints process. While the landlord has apologised for failings, it has not compensated the resident for its failings or the detrimental impact upon her. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered its compensation policy and particularly, a medium impact level of compensation as there has been a repeated failure to address shortcomings. When all factors are considered, this Service finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

While the landlord’s complaints policy says when it processes complaints, it will act with an open mind and consider all information carefully, however in this case it failed to take an overview of the case and focused on the discrete issues presented to it by the resident. These issues were a segment of her larger ASB concerns. The noise issues had been reported by her and other neighbours for a number of years and a considered approach taking all factors into account by the landlord would have been appropriate.
This investigation has considered the previous complaint outcome of 1 October 2021 about ASB management. In its October 2021 outcome, the landlord said it would take the resident’s reports seriously, take a complainant centred approach to subsequent investigations, and improve its communications. While the November 2021 complaint involved separate issues (eg structure), it had an underlying theme of Ms A and Mr A disregarding their tenancy obligations, including ASB. This complaint was made 7 weeks after the October 2021 complaint concluded. The complaints policy requires it to consider all information carefully. When dealing with the November 2021 complaint, the evidence does not show the landlord considered the October 2021 complaints outcomes. It is not always appropriate to consider historic complaint outcomes but given the common threads and the proximity of time between the complaints, it would have been sensible to do so. Had it done so, it would have been aware it had reassured the resident it would improve its communication “on what we can and cannot do in any circumstances presented”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is a failure of complaint handling oversight and a missed opportunity.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 3 December 2021 following the resident’s November 2021 complaint. The response confirmed its intention to check the structure. The intention was vague and not in line with its October complaint outcome to improve communications and provide clarity around its actions. A clear plan with timeframes to contact relevant teams to consider the structure, arrange an inspection, and update the resident of any proposed actions or findings should have been put in place. In the absence of a plan, the situation was allowed to slip, and the resident found herself again in the position of having to ask the landlord for an update 3 weeks later. This was a missed opportunity to build trust and confidence with the resident and take proactive steps. It breached its policy by not considering all relevant information, including the October outcome, to ensure consistency of complaint handling.
When the resident made a further formal complaint on 30 March 2022, she again raised the structure. The resident was put to the time and trouble of making a second complaint about the structure before it was resolved by the landlord. The resident would have been frustrated and inconvenience by this. The landlord apologised during both sets of complaints procedures about its handling of the structure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was maladministration due to its poor complaint handling.
While the landlord has apologised for failings around the structure, it has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures or offered financial compensation to the resident. Its response has not been proportionate to the distress and detriment experience by the resident due to its failings. Again, this Service finds a medium impact in line with the landlord’s compensation policy due to an organisational failure to address shortcomings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord breached its own policies and did not keep the resident updated. This investigation has considered the landlord’s failure to adequately respond to the concerns regarding an ‘unsafe’ structure and noise reports along with its updates concerning the handling of ASB. While it has apologised for some failings and undertook training, this does not reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
The landlord displayed a lack of complaints oversight and management. While it has apologised for some failings, this does not reflect the detriment to the resident for which no compensatory remedy was offered or provided.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 5 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £500. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. The compensation comprises:
  1. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour.
  2. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures in its service.
The landlord must review the learning from this case and write to this Service within 8 weeks setting out its intentions to take the following action:
1. Review its complaints procedures to ensure its officers separate out ASB issues from non-ASB issues and respond appropriately.
2. Review its ASB policy so it proactively monitors any ‘live’ acceptable behaviour contracts in ASB cases, with regular reviews undertaken with the signatories of the contracts along with the individuals subject to the ASB and/or neighbours to ensure compliance and take enforcement action, if appropriate.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Consider this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation. The web link to the report is KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The report provides recommendations, which the landlord should consider incorporating into its relevant policies to ensure accurate record keeping.