Cobalt Housing Limited (202121650)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121650

Cobalt Housing Limited

29 November 2023 (amended at review)

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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of racial anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) from her neighbours.
2. the resident’s concerns about racist language used in documents submitted to court.
3. The Ombudsman also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is terraced house.
There is a history of ASB reports and counter allegations involving the resident and neighbours.
In August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a notice for possession of the property from 24 November 2020, due to around 80 ASB reports about her. The same month, an interim injunction was also granted against the resident. In October 2020, the landlord responded to a previous complaint from the resident about its handling of ASB reports, which the Ombudsman determined in August and December 2021. These assessed matters up to October 2020 and found service failure for ASB handling. In February 2021, the landlord brought court possession proceedings against the resident, and from around April 2021, it also progressed court proceedings against her for breaching the injunction. In February 2022, after the landlord’s response to the complaint which this investigation determines, an injunction against the resident was withdrawn.

Summary of events

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial ASB from her neighbours

Between September and December 2020, there was contact between the landlord and resident about ASB reports, and it invited her to send evidence. In December 2020, the resident asked for advice or a call about the process to correctly log incidents. The landlord asked the resident to email incident logs and WhatsApp video footage and said that it could speak to the resident and decide how to move forward with her case. Later the same month, the landlord wrote to the resident after she contacted multiple staff about issues it had responded to already, and set out a communication plan. It asked her not to contact it about historic ASB, and reminded her that new ASB should be reported to certain staff.
On 10 January 2021, the resident made a report to the police, that there were ongoing issues with her neighbours, and that she believed she was being targeted due to her skin colour. She detailed incidents such as a neighbour kicking a coconut into her car; throwing a faeces-covered Christmas card that she gave them into her garden; singing racist songs; and being referred to as the half-caste woman. The police noted that no action was and could be taken based on the evidence, and that the resident was advised to avoid any contact with neighbours. The police however noted that they left a voicemail, asking landlord staff to contact them so support and assistance could be offered to prevent further escalation, for which the outcome is unclear.
The police also referred the resident to a hate crime support service on 15 January 2021, after which the hate crime support organisation wrote a letter dated 27 January 2021 saying it was supporting the resident and a request to be rehoused after a racially motivated hate incident on 10 January 2021.
The same day, the landlord’s records show that it closed an ASB case as there had been no response to an email asking the resident to email incident logs. The resident has raised dissatisfaction that this was without speaking to her, and was the same day as the letter from the hate crime support organisation.
In January 2021, the resident made other reports to the police, including neighbours jet washing her garden and path; neighbours leaving bins in inconvenient locations; and calling her a “soft shite,” “bastard,” and “[expletive] scruff.” The information provided shows that the resident felt some of this was because of her skin colour, and that some reports were passed to local policing to review.
In February 2021, the resident raised concern that the landlord taking out an injunction against her had made her a target for abuse. In March 2021, the landlord explained how the resident could report ASB and proposed a video call. It acknowledged receipt of a letter from the hate crime support organisation, but said that if the resident had made a report to the police and the police had not opened a case, it was not able to respond.
On 17 March 2021, a video call was held with the landlord, the resident and her sister, which the landlord supplies meeting notes for. The resident said she had experienced ASB since July 2020 and that she had 6 incident diaries, CCTV footage, and photos from CCTV and her phone. The resident detailed alleged ASB, including that she had been called “chocolate face” on 12 January, and played footage of alleged harassment. It was agreed that she would send videos to staff via WhatsApp, and would bring physical ASB information to the landlord’s office on 23 March. The minutes indicated that there would potentially be a further meeting on 29 March, which an individual understood to be a police officer would be invited to.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord responded to concerns from the resident about its handling of some ASB reports. It noted that when it received a letter from an anti-racism organisation the police said they were not able to investigate as there was no evidence supporting the reports. It said that its view was that if the resident was unable to provide supporting evidence it was unable to act upon reports. It noted the meeting the previous day, and that the resident had agreed to contact staff with a time to meet them at its offices as they were currently closed to the public. It said that staff would review everything the resident provided her and would discuss next steps after the review. It noted that staff had also agreed to make copies of everything they were provided so that the resident could maintain her records.
Following this, there was correspondence about arranging for the resident to supply evidence to the landlord, which needed notice for this. The landlord gave dates when certain staff would be there, but also said that she could drop off evidence at other times. The provision of information on 23 March did not take place as the resident reportedly did not reply in a timely enough manner. The resident wanted to hand over evidence on 30 March, but this was unsuitable for the landlord and not confirmed, and it was agreed for the resident to hand over evidence on 1 April. Around this time, the resident’s sister asked the landlord to schedule the further meeting it had said it would schedule, and it explained it would schedule another video call once it had reviewed the evidence.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord said it needed to rearrange the visit to 6 April. The resident raised concern about this, as action was being taken against her, and she felt she had evidence for action against perpetrators of ASB against her. The resident raised concern that the possession proceedings were based on failings in process such as no mediation. The landlord responded that the court case was separate to the issues it was dealing with, but when it received the evidence it would review this and deal with any breaches of tenancy. It confirmed that hard copies of evidence could be provided on 6 April but also that the resident could send evidence by email, including videos of alleged racial abuse and dates they related to. The same day, it contacted the hate crime support organisation and asked if they could forward videos they had of alleged racial abuse for it to review.
On 2 April 2021, the resident explained that there were a lot [of videos]. She noted that she had previously been informed that previous reports from her had not been investigated due to excessive information, and said this was a concern. The same day, the resident made reports to the police. Some music was being played and she had started to record this to prove it was not her. When doing so, a neighbour came outside and asked why she was recording them. It was noted that the resident also said that a neighbour had called her “chocolate face,” and “a [expletive] weirdo” when she was getting out of the car. The resident believed these were racially motivated, and police were requested to visit and a referral was made to the hate crime support service.
The resident subsequently emailed the landlord, including with images and screenshots of historic messages between her and landlord staff up to around August 2020. These referenced events between her and neighbours around that time and a neighbour’s use of the term “half caste” in a court statement. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had considered that no action was required when she had previously attempted to complain about these.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to see if she was attending that day with evidence as previously invited. On 7 April 2021, the resident responded that she had been unwell, but would hand evidence in by the following day and email videos over. The same day, the landlord wrote a warning letter to her. It noted that she had been asked to reduce communication, but she had sent excessive emails and WhatsApp messages, not provided evidence of new alleged ASB behaviour, and failed to keep pre-arranged appointments. It said that it would no longer communicate via WhatsApp. It said that it would only investigate ASB reports and arrange a new video call when new or relevant evidence had been provided.
Following this, the resident corresponded with the landlord about sharing some videos and diary sheets and was provided information on how to do this, including that she could send videos via email and bring evidence into the office on 13 April 2021.
On 9 April 2021, the resident emailed a video and detailed an incident on 26 January 2021 where she had an exchange with her neighbour outside her home. She reported that they said she was a “scruff” and a “tramp,” asked her what she was going to do about it, and said they knew information about her alleged personal life. The audio of the video provided is unclear, however this seems to show the neighbour saying things including the word “scruff” and the resident responding that they were not nice things to say. The video seems to show the neighbour talking at the resident more than she to them and ends with their voice saying “I know a lot, [resident’s name].” The resident says this video was played at the 17 March 2021 video call, that she was called names due to her mixed race appearance, and that the incident caused her distress.
The resident sent further information about incidents including individuals watching her buy ice cream; neighbouring children being encouraged to trespass on her drive; neighbours pushing gravel into her side of the garden; neighbours’ dogs barking; a bin being put in an inconvenient location; and a fire and fireworks on her neighbour’s drive in November 2020.
On 12 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord for confirmation that emails containing ASB logs and footage had been received. The landlord said it had received all the footage that had been sent and would review this in when it had the paper evidence, which it understood may be brought in the following day. The landlord noted that the resident had said she had a video where someone made a racist comment towards her which it had not received, otherwise “that’s it.”
On 13 April 2021, the resident forwarded a support letter from the hate crime support organisation. This was dated 8 April 2021, and said that it had been re-referred by the police following reports on 2 April 2021.
On 24 April 2021, the resident emailed a letter from the police to the local authority, supporting a move. This said that the resident had reported racially abusive behaviour from neighbours, and that there was currently an ongoing investigation to support the resident. It is unclear if this had been provided to the landlord previously by the police.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it was responding to emails she had sent on three dates. It noted that she now wanted to provide evidence digitally, which it was happy to accommodate to help her supply evidence of her allegations. It noted that she had emailed multiple recipients 25 times in the past 10 days. It said it felt this to be excessive and wanted to have a more structured approach, and set out how to it wanted her to email ASB reports and the information to include. The following day, the resident acknowledged this but said she would still be supplying some paper evidence such as incident diaries, which she had discussed with staff.
On 4 May 2021, the resident queried if she could visit the following day to hand in some paperwork. Staff responded that they were not in the office until the following week, but the resident could hand evidence in and this would be passed to them. The resident subsequently asked if there could be a video call the following day, and also said a police officer was trying to get in touch.
On 5 May 2021, the staff responded that they was unable to arrange a video call that week, and restated their availability the following week. They said that the police officer could be provided their details to contact them. The same day, the resident sent a number of emails, and the landlord asked the resident to be mindful of the communication plan set out on 26 April, such as the email address and ASB reporting format to use. In the emails:
1. the resident detailed an incident on 12 January 2021 and supplied a video. She said that she recorded her neighbour’s dogs one evening and a neighbour came out to the edge of their driveway and stared at her. She said that she came out later the same evening, with her phone recording but lowered, and that her neighbour shouted “arent you gonna say hello chocolate face, you got choccy face, chocolate face.” A video supplied by the resident shows someone saying something to this effect.
2. the resident raised concern that she had received no response in a timely manner about new ASB that she had reported. She requested an update on her ASB reports and a date for the further video call that had been agreed at the meeting on 17 March 2021.
On 6 May 2021, landlord staff emailed the resident that they were in the office that day until the afternoon, and she could provide evidence before or after then.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s ASB logs note that the resident reported that a neighbour had used offensive and sexual language, which she had video of and she had reported to the police (this investigation understands this may refer to a 26 January incident referred to at paragraph 19 of this report). Following this, the resident stated dissatisfaction that evidence of hate crime had not been investigated in a timely manner; witness statements contained derogatory and offensive language, leading to her being supported by an external organisation; and a video call requested several times had not gone ahead. On 19 May 2021, she subsequently noted that reports had been responded to in witness statements for court against her, but they had not been responded to in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure. On 24 May 2021, the resident asked if there was feedback on the ASB reported so far, in particular video provided of a neighbour.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had decided to no longer provide an ASB service to deal with her reports of ASB. It told her that if she experienced ASB to contact the police, and if they believed it needed to act, the police should contact the landlord and it would deal with them directly and support her ASB reports of ASB via this route. It said that this change in approach was due to the way the resident communicated and her excessive emails and WhatsApp messages. It said that any future ASB reports would not be acknowledged, responded to, or saved. It said that it would continue to take reports of serious incidents of ASB and crime from the police and would act upon them accordingly. It noted that communication between it and the resident had not been effective, and it offered for the resident to participate in mediation between itself and an independent organisation in order to find common ground to help them move forward. It detailed how the resident could take up this offer if she wished.
On 27 May 2021, the police informed the landlord that a report from the resident about a neighbour had been noted as requiring no further action, which she had been informed of. They noted that they had advised the neighbours and the resident to avoid any contact with each other.
In September 2021, the resident discussed the incident where she alleged she had been called “choccy face” with a hate crime organisation, towards getting this reopened by the police. In correspondence, she said it had been logged wrongly and shut down by the police due to there not being enough evidence, which she queried as it could be heard on camera. She noted that she was told an official warning would be given to the neighbours but it had not been.
On 6 October 2021, the resident made a complaint, enclosing a letter dated 29 September 2021. She complained that she had been treated in a less favourable and discriminatory way, particularly when reporting ASB and hate crime from October 2020. She noted that she met with the landlord on 17 March 2021 and evidence of new hate crime was shared and a communication plan was agreed, however the landlord failed to engage with the plan properly and failed to attend a second meeting. She said that she had sent in new CCTV evidence showing her being victimised and no one had got in touch with her, while the ASB perpetrators had made statements against her, which she felt was bias. She noted that reports had been referred via the local authority in March and June 2021 which the landlord had acknowledged but not responded to. On 28 October 2021, after chasing from the resident, the landlord confirmed that it had logged a complaint to investigate alleged racial discrimination.
On 1 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about a post it had made on social media about reporting hate crime. She queried the point of this when she had had not felt safe for 17 months, had experienced alarm and distress from the landlord, and it had supported people who had subjected her to hate crime. She also said that the landlord had submitted racist documents at court.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It noted relevant definitions in the Equality Act 2010 and that the resident complained it had treated her unfairly due to her race and had not investigated allegations of racial ASB as part of her case. It noted that the ASB case included reports of alleged racial comments aimed at the resident. It said that during the ASB case, both parties were asked to comply with behaviour action plans to promote being respectful, and it understood there was not enough evidence to progress the allegations of racial discrimination. It noted it contacted the police that had investigated the racial allegation, who had said there was no further action and who had not requested further action from the landlord. It also said it had spoken to a support service that tackles discrimination and they had not suggested it had been discriminatory. It concluded that it felt it had not directly or indirectly discriminated against the resident due to her race. It said it had investigated and discussed matters with outside agencies to ensure it followed any recommendations, and in the resident’s case there had been no further actions for it to complete. Following this, the resident requested escalation of the complaint.
On 7 and 13 December 2021, the landlord emailed the racism support organisation. It noted that the resident had asked it for a move, and asked if the organisation could confirm that there had been racially aggravating incidents against her, and that the resident was at risk or being harassed to an extent that was being significantly detrimental to her health.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to provide consent for the police to share information with it about hate incidents and crimes reported by her while at the property (it then re-stated this request on 27 January 2022).
On 16 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted that the resident complained it had breached the Equality Act 2010 in respect to race, and that the resident had queried why it had not helped her in relation to her allegations of race discrimination; why it have not made any referrals to third party organisations; why it had not alerted her to services mentioned in social media posts it had made about hate crime; and why it had submitted documents to court which included the term “half caste.” It noted that she said this made her feel racially discriminated against and caused her further alarm and distress. It said restated its previous response that racial discrimination was investigated during the ASB case without there being enough evidence to progress them, and that it had spoken to a support service that tackles discrimination. It said that as allegations were deal with in line with its normal processes with appropriate third party involvement it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint that it had discriminated against her in its handling. It noted that social media posts recommended reporting hate crime to the police in the first instance, and that as the police were involved and the most appropriate agency to investigate the concerns it was unable to conclude that it had been discriminatory in not alerting her to other services in the social media post. It noted that the resident requested details of hate crime reported to it, and asked her to make this request to a relevant team.
On 3 February 2022, the hate crime support organisation carried out a review of information for the resident’s case. They noted that absent staff had previously provided a letter of support for a housing move to be prioritised. They noted that the staff may have been aware of additional uncaptured information, but said that based on the information available there were insufficient grounds to prioritise the move.
It is noted the organisation recommended that the landlord should consider obtaining a more accurate overview of previous incidents from other partners, including the police and the resident’s medical practitioner, as this should assist with making an evidenced based assessment of any rehousing request.
The resident raises dissatisfaction that her reported ASB was not taken seriously and the perpetrators became worse after an injunction taken against her. She also raises dissatisfaction that an action plan at a March 2021 meeting was not adhered to, and raises dissatisfaction that she was told sending ASB evidence over multiple emails was unacceptable behaviour when she had been told to make individual reports before doing this.

The resident’s concerns about racist language used in documents submitted to court

The landlord wrote to the resident in August 2020 enclosing a notice requiring possession. It detailed its intention to terminate her tenancy on 24 November 2020, and listed around 80 points it was basing this decision on. This included an anonymous report in June 2020 which referred to the resident as “half cast” when detailing alleged ASB from her. In February 20201, the landlord’s August 2020 letter, containing this statement, was included as a supporting document to a court claim form seeking possession of the property. The resident subsequently complained about the term being used by the landlord in court documents it submitted.
In its complaint response, the landlord noted that documents submitted to court including the term “half caste” were included as part of a statement by a neighbour. It said it would never ‘sanitise’ a statement for court and that while it acknowledged it was offensive, it was appropriate to include the entire statement in the court documents and it was satisfied it was not done with the intention to discriminate against the resident.
The resident says that the “half caste” aspect has since been determined by the Information Commissioner’s Office, for which she has raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident was informed that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that are the subject of legal proceedings, and so matters related to injunctions and possession proceedings are not considered in this investigation. The resident has also been informed that it is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about discrimination. The Ombudsman can consider how the landlord handled reports from the resident and responded to concerns – which this investigation goes on to do. The investigation focuses on events after October 2020, after a previous complaint progressed through the landlord’s complaint procedure, up until December 2021, when the landlord provided its final response for this complaint.
This investigation does not investigate other complaints the resident has raised separately such as alleged personal data breaches, a transfer, safeguarding, mental health discrimination, disability discrimination, a COVID-19 warning, the landlord’s seeking of injunctions and possession proceedings, the landlord’s ceasing of an ASB service, and its offering of independent mediation and ASB services. If the landlord has provided final complaint responses about these issues, the resident has the option to refer these to the Ombudsman if she has not done so already, and where she has done so these are being progressed for investigation separately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) from her neighbours

The resident was clearly dissatisfied that action was being taken against her and not her neighbours, as she alleged that her neighbours were committing ASB against her, and implied that proceedings against her was encouraging her neighbours to treat her badly.
In response to ASB reports from the resident, it is evident that the landlord invited the resident to provide incident logs; that it held a video call with her and her sister; and that it invited her to visit its office in order for physical evidence to be copied. Apart from a 30 March 2021 date, which the landlord never confirmed, and a 1 April 2021 date, which the landlord cancelled, there seems to have been a number of dates on which the resident had the option to supply evidence. This demonstrates that the landlord gave reasonable opportunity for evidence to be supplied, which the landlord made clear it was necessary for it to receive in order for it to review alleged ASB, arrange a further video call and decide next steps. However, when the landlord was in receipt of evidence it is unclear that matters were always handled reasonably.
The landlord was sent information in April and May 2021 which it decided was excessive. It is reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to moderate communication, but from the information supplied to the Ombudsman, this does not seem to have been such that it reasonably prevented the landlord from reviewing the information; setting out its position on historical or irrelevant information; and setting out its position on more recent incidents. The resident indicates that she first heard about the landlord’s position on some reports in May 2021 court proceedings, while a 13 April 2022 document seems to be the first clear summary the Ombudsman can see of the resident’s ASB reports and the landlord’s actions and position for them. It is not satisfactory that it is not evident that the landlord took steps to review and directly advise the resident of its position on reports, contemporaneously.
On 10 January 2021, the police noted that the resident reported incidents such as a neighbour kicking a coconut into her car; throwing a faeces-covered Christmas card that she gave them into her garden; singing racist songs; and referring to her as the “half-caste” woman. The police noted that no action could be taken and that the resident was advised to avoid any contact with neighbours. The police however noted that they left a voicemail asking landlord staff to contact them so support and assistance could be offered to prevent further escalation. It is not satisfactory that the landlord’s contemporaneous records are unclear about its actions and positions after contact with the police such as this.
The evidence shows that by 9 April 2021, the resident provided a video from January seeming to show her being called a “scruff” by a neighbour, which she felt was race related, and the neighbour generally talking at her, more than she with them, in what seems an impolite manner. The landlord said that if the resident had made a report to the police and the police had not opened a case, it was not able to respond. This does not seem reasonable, as it would have been expected for the landlord to show that incidents such as this, and behavioural standards, were discussed with neighbours. This indicates that the landlord did not always recognise the role it can take in trying to ensure that neighbours do not behave to each other in an impolite way, even if there is insufficient evidence to take formal action.
The resident supplied video of a neighbour saying “choccy face” near her property. The landlord’s April 2022 summary says that this was from the resident holding her phone outside her bedroom window; that there were date discrepancies; and that no action was taken after police discussion. This is not entirely satisfactory. The resident says she recorded the video from her doorstep, which seems consistent with the video and images of the property, and the contradiction of where the video was filmed gives the impression of seeking to unnecessarily undermine the resident’s account. The landlord indicates that dates were inconsistent, however the resident said that the incident occurred in January 2021, in the landlord’s own minutes and when emailing the video. Again, the landlord’s comments over when the video was filmed gives the impression of trying to unnecessarily undermine the resident’s account, and seem to give more weight to a verbal recollection of a conversation than dates she supplied on at least two occasions. The summary says that the voice was not aimed at the resident and was of a parent talking to a small child. The landlord is entitled to make assessments about information, but its approach seems over speculative, and it should have shown it obtained the neighbour’s version of events. The landlord also should have made more effort to establish if the phrase heard was directed toward the resident and, if it was to establish if this was racially motivated. The resident says she was told a warning would be given to the neighbours, which suggests her expectations may not have been managed at the time, but contemporaneous investigation when the video was received by 5 May 2021 is not clear. The landlord should have shown that it clearly communicated to the resident about its position, contemporaneously.
Overall, the situation was clearly a challenging one for the landlord, but its response to the resident’s reports of racial ASB was not reasonable. As noted in a previous decision, while the resident was investigated as a perpetrator of ASB, and the landlord was having to balance different residents’ needs, this should not impact the service that she is entitled to. It should have demonstrated that it contemporaneously reviewed and set out its position about reports it received. It felt it could not take action if the police decided this was not required, but it should have demonstrated that it considered any informal action it could take to prevent potential escalation as requested by the police, including in respect to impolite, confrontational and potentially racially offensive engagement with the resident from neighbours.
The landlord should have also demonstrated that it spoke to a neighbour to obtain their version of events for the context in which the words “choccy face” were used, rather than basing this on the police’s and its own speculation alone. The nature, frequency and evidence for the reports ultimately does not seem to have been sufficient for the police to consider more formal action, or for a hate crime organisation to support an urgent move, but it is understandable that the landlord’s handling will have led the resident to feel treated differently and unsupported for any behaviour against her that did occur. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial ASB from her neighbours.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about racist language used in documents submitted to court

The evidence shows that a neighbour used the term “half cast” in a statement in August 2020. After the resident’s complaint about this term being used, the landlord acknowledged it was offensive, but explained that it was appropriate to include the entire statement in the court documents, and that it was not done with the intention to discriminate against the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident found the term offensive, and also that the Information Commissioner’s Office has since decided on the issue. It is not in our jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about issues of discrimination and usage of personal data in legal proceedings. We would also note that the landlord’s actions in respect to its receipt of a statement with this term is not the focus of this investigation, but a recommendation is made in relation to this. Initially, it seems that some personal data may be disclosed as part of court proceedings where it may not otherwise be, and it is not in our expertise to definitively decide what information should and should not be provided to a court in its original form.
The landlord seems to have responded to this aspect in a reasonable way, as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns; provided explanation about the inclusion of the term in court documents; and reassured her that this was done to be in line with court practice rather than with any intention to discriminate against her. In the Ombudsman’s view, given the above and our remit, this was a suitable response.

Complaint handling

The resident initially complained to the landlord on 6 October 2021. This complaint was not logged until 28 October 2021, and only after she made contact with the landlord again to follow-up on this. This was not acceptable, and the Ombudsman acknowledges the frustration and additional time and trouble caused to the resident by this.
It is also noted that the landlord’s policy does not outline the timescale within which it will acknowledge complaints, which is also not acceptable and should be corrected. The Ombudsman’s most recent Complaint Handling Code makes clear complaints should be acknowledged within five working days of the complaint being received. It is upon this basis the finding that the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint within a reasonable timescale has been made.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 10 November 2021, within 9 working days, which complies with the timescale allowed (10 working days). Following the resident’s request to escalate to stage two on 10 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response on 16 December 2021. It therefore took the landlord 26 working days to provide a response at stage two, outside of the 20 working days allowed by its policy. This delay was not significant, given the complexity of the matter. However, there is also no evidence it sought to inform the resident of this delay, or that the response timescale was extended by mutual agreement; as required by paragraph 3.2 of its policy. As such, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 of racial anti-social behaviour from her neighbours.
No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about racist language used in documents submitted to court.
Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord should have demonstrated that it contemporaneously reviewed and set out its position to the resident about reports it received.
The landlord provided suitable acknowledgement, explanation and reassurance for the resident’s concerns about the language used in the court documents.
The landlord did not formally agree an extension to providing its stage two response to the resident as its policy dictates it should.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £600 compensation, comprised of:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s mishandling of your reports of ASB;
2. £100 for the additional time and trouble taken by you in pursuing the complaint;
3. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to you by the landlord’s delay in handling your complaint.
Within eight weeks, the landlord must:
Review the circumstances in which the term “half caste” was used, and to review any learning and staff training needs in respect to challenging language and behaviour from residents.
Review recommendations in the Ombudsman’s previous decision in respect to the resident’s ASB, to ensure these are given regard to when handling and communicating about ASB.
Contact the resident to record any ongoing incidents of ASB which have not yet exhausted its internal complaints procedure. It must investigate these concerns in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should ensure it obtains details of any specific vulnerabilities and/or reasonable adjustments required by the resident; and should outline what additional measures it will take to accommodate these.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider reviewing the methods for reporting hate crimes and racism, and consider if these are sufficient.
The landlord to consider arranging a meeting between the resident and its senior staff. This meeting would be intended for the resident to have the opportunity to voice her ongoing concerns about racism and ASB (and the landlord’s handling of the same).