Magenta Living (202319377)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319377

Magenta Living

25 June 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been a joint assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2014 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident completed an internal transfer in November 2023.
3. Between November 2020 and September 2023 the resident reported ASB by multiple neighbours to the landlord. In August 2023 he logged complaints with the landlord about its handling of his reports. On 15 September 2023 the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his internal transfer. He said his housing officer was not supporting him adequately or offering suitable properties. He wanted to be given more choice over the areas where properties were offered, for the move to be facilitated quicker, and a change of housing officer.
4. In its stage 1 response of 29 September 2023, the landlord said:
   1. In response to a previous complaint, it had contacted the resident and offered a property which he had declined.
   2. It could only offer properties where it had available stock; his request for a property outside those areas was difficult to accommodate.
   3. It had offered another property that week which the resident had declined. It was prioritising his move, but he could also explore with another registered landlord with stock in other areas.
   4. It had found no failings in the housing officer’s conduct and so would not assign a new one.
5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2023, saying he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and how it had managed his ASB reports. He said his neighbours had targeted him because of his race and religion and the landlord had not supported him or acted against them appropriately. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 December 2023, and said:
   1. There was a clear need to fully investigate and resolve this matter because it was evident there was activity against the resident from other tenants.
   2. Its review identified circumstances where it could and should have taken further action.
   3. It had taken too long to issue a video doorbell after agreeing to provide one.
   4. There were constraints due to some perpetrators not being its tenants; it had correctly signposted him to the police, who remained involved.
   5. It had agreed a priority move due to the exceptional circumstances. It had offered 3 alternative properties, with one now accepted.
   6. It apologised for the delays and missed opportunities to address the issues sooner.
   7. It had reviewed its ASB and hate incident procedures, and introduced a person-centered risk assessment for hate related incidents. It would deliver training to staff to ensure lessons learnt were embedded and continual improvements made.
   8. It offered £150 in decorating vouchers and £100 compensation to recognise its failings, and the inconvenience caused.
6. In his referral to us the resident said he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

ASB

7. It is not our role to establish the validity of the ASB reports made by the resident. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports to determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
8. The landlord accepted there were failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It apologised, offered compensation, and set out actions it would take to learn from its failures. The question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
9. The landlord’s ASB policy applicable at the time sets out behaviour it considers to be antisocial and how it responds to reports. It classes harassment, intimidation, hate incidents, verbal abuse, damage to property, and persistent high levels of noise as ASB. It defines hate related incidents as “any incident which is perceived to be hate motivated by the victim.” It says the landlord will do a risk assessment to identify support needs and enable referrals. It will then agree an action plan with the resident, and where action cannot be taken, it will tell them why. It says the landlord works with agencies like the police to tackle ASB, and support victims.
10. Evidence shows the resident had been making ASB reports for a number of years. There was a notable escalation in the behaviour in 2021, when a death threat was made. The resident reported this to the police and shared the crime reference number with the landlord. In June 2022, the resident reported further ASB and told the landlord he felt intimidated. He said he had complained previously but did not think anything was done. There is no evidence of action taken by the landlord or advice given to the resident in response to these reports.
11. In February 2023 the resident reported that a neighbour had approached his wife and ‘interrogated her like a policeman’, tried to gain information, and belittled her due to her English not being ‘very good’. He listed the flats involved in the various incidents and said they were all good friends. He said he and his wife did not feel safe, and he wanted to report this as a hate crime. There is no evidence of an ASB incident being logged, risk assessment done, advice given, or an action plan put in place.
12. The resident reported further ASB in March 2023 when he said he was approached by the neighbour who had previously threatened his life; he was upset that the landlord had not taken any action against him. Again, there is no evidence of any action taken in response to this report, in contravention of the landlord’s ASB policy. It was not until 30 May 2023, after the resident logged a further report of ASB on 28 May 2023, that an action plan was drafted. The agreement to provide the video doorbell was noted in this action plan. It is not clear when/if it was then installed. A stage 1 response of 25 August 2023, case reference F1825429, notes the landlord had not yet fitted this. It cited a lack of funds to make the purchase and then access to fit it as reasons for the delay.
13. The landlord made a partner agency information request to the police on 9 June 2023 about the incident on 28 May 2023. It received a crime reference number for a racially aggravated common assault. The report noted that during this altercation multiple neighbours had confronted the resident, with one shouting that he should not be living there. The resident said this neighbour had previously been racist towards him which he reported to the landlord. The evidence confirms the landlord enquired with the neighbour if/why this was said, and it was not denied (only denied that it was motivated by the resident’s ethnicity).
14. The police report also noted that a neighbour had made upsetting comments about the resident’s religious practice during Ramadan. The landlord later discussed this with the neighbour, and he did not deny them. A 30 June 2023 email from the police informed the landlord they had interviewed a third party who had confirmed the details provided of the incident but did not want to make a statement.
15. The resident reported further ASB on 20 August 2023, when, amongst other things, he said one of the neighbours accused him of abusing his wife. The evidence supports the veracity of this encounter and the neighbours’ beliefs about this, despite later confirmation that the police had no domestic violence orders against the resident. The evidence shows the resident’s race and religion were a factor in the behaviour he was experiencing from several neighbours at once.
16. The landlord’s policy does not require a hate crime to be established to deal with it accordingly; only that the victim has perceived it as a hate incident. With that being the case, the landlord should have been treating the matter more seriously sooner than it did, as it has acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
17. The landlord’s internal notes mention a lack of evidence making it difficult for meaningful progression. The majority of the reports were allegations of noise by and against the resident, as well as altercations and confrontations. We accept it can be difficult for the landlord to manage an ASB case with counter allegations and a lack of physical evidence, but there are things it can do to facilitate the gathering of evidence.
18. The landlord should have explored installing noise recording equipment or even directed the resident/s to a noise app. We have not seen evidence that it did so. Instead, it relied heavily on the resident providing it with evidence to support his reports. Had the doorbell been installed promptly, this would potentially have helped to gather evidence as well. Had it also taken a more comprehensive look at the reports, it might have realised the severity of the situation sooner, and that the resident was potentially being singled out because of his differences.
19. We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s actions. It has accepted its failings, apologised, and offered compensation. It has facilitated an internal property transfer as the resident no longer felt safe remaining within the block. We saw no evidence of failings in its handling of the property offers. It has also provided feedback to ensure it does not repeat the mistakes going forward. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
20. However, the compensation it has offered is not in line with our remedies guidance. Had the landlord done more sooner, it may have been able to stop things from escalating, and the resident’s move may not have been necessary at all. He had been living at the property for several years before he started experiencing issues with neighbours, some of whom had moved in after him. He repeatedly contacted the landlord, sharing openly and candidly the distress and fear experienced by him and his wife, the impact on their sleep, relationship and work.
21. The compensation offered, therefore, does not fully recognise the trouble, upset, distress, and inconvenience caused. The landlord is ordered below to pay the resident £600 in addition to the £250 it has offered in vouchers and compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the failure had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. It set out timeframes; 2 working days for acknowledgement and 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed).
23. The resident logged his complaint on 15 September 2023 and received the stage 1 response 10 days later; within the policy timeframes. He escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2023 and received a response on 1 December 2023, which was outside the policy timeframe of 20 working days. However, the landlord had contacted him on 17 November 2023 to say it needed additional time to investigate thoroughly. The response was then issued within the next 10 working days. This was in line with its policy. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £600 compensation, in addition to the £250 previously offered, for its handling of his ASB reports.