One Housing Group Limited (202303056)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303056

One Housing Group Limited

19 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which commenced on 30 October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s housing records.
The resident told the landlord on 1 March 2022 that she suffered from ‘‘noise pollution’ ’from neighbouring properties and asked if a letter could be sent to all of the residents in the building. She said there was a smell of cannabis from a neighbouring flat and this was entering her home. She noted on 21 March 2022 that another neighbour constantly slammed the doors and shouted. The landlord confirmed on 22 March 2022 that the resident should report the issue with drug use to the police.
The landlord opened an ASB case and developed an action plan on 8 June 2022. It told the resident her report of noise nuisance might be referred to the council as it had specialist equipment and trained staff who could determine if the noise was a statutory nuisance. It also said it may be able to take further steps if the noise was persistent and considered to be ASB. It agreed to warn the neighbour responsible for smoking cannabis and investigate her claims that the property had been sublet. The resident said she would report criminal offences to the police.
The resident told the landlord on 18 July 2022 that her neighbours had become more aggressive towards her and she believed this was because it had shared details about her reports of ASB with them. The landlord confirmed on the same day that it had issued warnings to both neighbours for the drug use and noise nuisance. It also said it had not disclosed any information about the resident. It asked the resident to provide copies of her diary sheets on 22 July 2022.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 September 2022. She said she could smell cannabis and her neighbour in the other flat used it as a brothel and slammed the doors. She also queried how effective a noise recording device and diary sheets would be in solving the issues. She noted she could not record someone smoking cannabis or slamming the doors if she did not know when incidents were going to happen.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2022 and said:
1. An ASB case was opened on 8 June 2022 and an action plan was agreed with the resident.
2. It had liaised with partner agencies including the police to resolve the issues raised by the resident. It had also advised the resident to report issues with noise nuisance to the council.
3. It advised the resident on 2 August 2022 that the reports of noise were due to insufficient sound proofing.
4. No evidence of cannabis use was found by the police during a visit to the building.
5. It had asked the resident on a number of occasions to provide diary sheets. This was because it needed evidence of the noise nuisance to take enforcement action.
6. It had undertaken site visits and discussed the issues of ASB with her neighbours. It had not shared any information about the resident with her neighbours.
7. It offered to place a professional witness in the resident’s home, but this was declined. The resident did agree to mediation.
8. Warning letters had been issued to both neighbours. This was for drug use and noise nuisance.
9. Its actions were in line with its ASB policy. This included providing the resident with regular updates.
10. It advised the resident on 10 August 2022 that it had received counter allegations of noise nuisance.
11. It advised the resident on 15 August 2022 that the issue with subletting had been resolved.
12. An appointment had been arranged for 29 September 2022 to visit her neighbours’ home given her reports of drug dealing.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 3 November 2022. She said she had raised concerns about her safety, noise pollution and drug use, but her concerns had not been addressed by the landlord. She said this was because of the colour of her skin and she had been made to look like an aggressor rather than treated as a victim. The resident noted that she was issued with a warning, bullied and threatened because she told the landlord the building was used as a brothel and drug den. She also noted the Tenants and Residents’ Association (TRA) had damaged her reputation and someone had raised concerns about her to her employer with the aim of getting her dismissed.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 December 2022 and said:
1. It was unable to progress the resident’s reports of ASB due to the lack of evidence. No other residents in the building had reported ASB from the properties identified by the resident.
2. The police had conducted a joint visit with the landlord on 27 October 2022 and could not detect the smell of cannabis in the building. It also carried out an inspection of the property and no evidence of drug misuse could be found.
3. It would not take enforcement action against residents for noise deemed to be household noise such as walking, talking and closing doors.
4. It had provided the resident with access to the Noise App.
5. The resident agreed to complete weekly diary sheets and a member of staff would contact her every week to provide assistance.
6. It appreciated the difficulties the resident would have allowing a professional witness into her home given her mother’s medical conditions.
7. The warnings issued to the resident and her neighbours were based on evidence. The resident was issued with a final warning due to 2 disturbances that happened in quick succession. A number of residents reported the incidents and audio footage was provided. The police were also involved but had confirmed no further action would be taken.
8. It could have been clearer with the resident when it issued the final warning on the reasons why it was doing so.
9. An action plan had been developed. This included offering to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property, fitting CCTV equipment in the communal area and reoffering the services of a professional witness.
10. It had not contacted the resident’s employer.
11. There was no evidence the resident had been treated differently because of the colour of her skin. The final warning letter was issued because of the unacceptable behaviour of her mother.
The landlord served a section 21 notice on the resident on 7 August 2023 for ASB. The resident made a further complaint on the same day and said she was unhappy with the conduct of a member of staff and noted the landlord had discriminated against her.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2023 and said:
1. It had listened to the telephone call with the resident on 1 August 2023 and confirmed no personal information was shared with her about her neighbour.
2. It had listened to the telephone call with the resident on 4 August 2023 and identified the resident made inappropriate comments towards a member of staff.
3. The member of staff could have handled parts of the telephone call with the resident on 8 August 2023 differently. It apologised for this and said discussions had taken place with the member of staff concerned and further training would be provided.
4. The advice given by the member of staff about contacting the police was correct. This was because it did not have the power to investigate criminal activities such as those reported by the resident.
5. It could find no evidence it had discriminated against the resident.
6. The resident had not provided any evidence to support the reports of noise nuisance and as such, it could not take any further action. It was waiting a response from the resident to its offer to instal noise monitoring equipment.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 22 August 2023. The landlord issued its second final complaint response on 19 August 2023 and said:
1. It would install the noise monitoring equipment after the resident agreed it could do this.
2. It had not blocked communication from the resident.
3. A section 21 notice was served given the number of reports of ASB that had been received about the resident and her mother. Details were included in the covering letter sent to the resident on 7 August 2023. The resident was able to appeal the decision should she wish to.
4. The member of staff would contact the resident given her request for a personal apology.
5. It did not disclose personal information to the resident about her neighbour.
6. There was insufficient evidence to take action against her neighbour for ASB. It contacted the witness identified by the resident, but they did not respond.
7. No evidence of drug dealing had been received by the landlord or the police.
8. The resident had declined the landlord’s offer to install noise monitoring equipment on a number of occasions. The last offer was declined as the resident had Covid but would be installed once it was next free. The resident could use the noise app in the meantime.
9. The resident’s reports of aggressive and bullish behaviour by the TRA were discussed with the chair and denied. It also discussed the resident’s allegations that a TRA member was abusive towards delivery drivers and the explanation given was plausible. It approached the delivery companies and paramedics alleged to have witnessed incidents, but they were unable to provide any information.
10. It had not shared any information with the resident’s employer. The resident should contact her workplace if she wished to progress matters.
The resident voluntarily moved out of the property on 6 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it takes a victim-centred, proportionate and robust approach to ASB. Its definition of ASB includes incidents involving harassment and conduct which cause alarm or distress. A range of early intervention tools are used by the landlord to stop ASB including mediation, warnings and referrals to partner agencies. Residents are responsible for reporting ASB, including completing diary sheets. Household noise and disputes between neighbours are not considered ASB. Residents are encouraged to resolve such matters themselves or engage in mediation. They are also advised to report criminal activities to the police.
The resident’s tenancy agreement includes a clause stating they must not cause a nuisance or annoyance, use the property for criminal purposes or harass or threaten anyone living in the local area.
The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 and said she had been subject to ‘‘noise pollution’’ from neighbouring properties. She asked the landlord to send a letter to all the other residents living in the building. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the request or asked the resident for more information. Its ASB policy says it will contact complainants within 3 working days. This was a missed opportunity to establish the nature of the problem and manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 March 2022 and asked for an update. The landlord responded on the same day and queried what type of noise was being caused and asked the resident if she had contacted the council’s environmental health team. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it may recommend resident’s contact the council given it has a statutory role and resources to deal with specific types of ASB. There is no evidence the resident did this.
The resident told the landlord on 21 March 2022 that her neighbours were constantly slamming the communal door and were shouting and swearing. She also said she could smell cannabis. It was appropriate for the landlord to send a letter to all the residents living in the building reminding them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement and to note it may take enforcement action against anyone found to be engaged in criminal activity. It also asked the residents to be mindful of their neighbours. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to meet the resident and this demonstrated it wanted to work with her and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. The meeting was declined by the resident due to her work commitments.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm with the resident on 22 March 2022 that she needed to report illegal drug use to the police. This was in accordance with its ASB policy.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 6 June 2022 she had identified which resident was smoking cannabis. It was appropriate for the landlord to open an ASB case and develop an action plan on 8 June 2022 in accordance with its ASB policy. It also completed a risk assessment. The landlord agreed to issue a warning to the alleged perpetrator and liaise with the police regarding the matter. It also agreed to investigate the resident’s claims of subletting. These actions were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident said she would report future incidents of drug use to the police.
The housing records confirm the resident made further reports of noise nuisance and drug use over the following few months. The landlord responded to these reports in accordance with its ASB policy. This included liaising with the police, carrying out visits to the building, discussing the concerns with the resident’s neighbours and issuing warnings. It also provided the resident with regular updates and asked her to provide diary sheets on a number of occasions. This demonstrated it wanted to work with her and establish the nature and frequency of the problem. It also arranged for a surveyor to inspect the doors to establish if they could be adjusted, although it is unclear from the housing records whether any work was carried out.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 18 July 2022 that it had not disclosed any information about the resident to her neighbours given she raised concerns that it had done so. This provided reassurance and helped rebuild trust with the resident.
The housing records confirm the landlord asked the resident for a copy of her ASB diaries on 22 July 2022. This was in accordance with its ASB policy which says residents are responsible for providing evidence in the form of a diary. The landlord told the resident on 2 August 2022 the noise was due to insufficient soundproofing and not ASB. This was appropriate and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations as landlords cannot be expected to take action against residents for noise that is considered household noise and outside their control. It shared details about the alleged subletting, drug use and noise nuisance with the police on 28th July 2022.
The landlord asked the resident again on 5 August 2022 for copies of her diary sheets and told her it had issued an advisory letter about the noise in accordance with its ASB policy. It also said it had received counter allegations. A warning letter was issued to the neighbour engaged in drug use. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it will use interventions such as warning letters to ‘‘stop the problem behaviour.’’
The resident agreed to participate in mediation with the neighbour alleged to have caused noise nuisance on 10 August 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to use a professional witness and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for her. Evidence gathering is critical when investigating reports of ASB as landlords are unable to take formal action against alleged perpetrators without strong supporting evidence. The offer was declined by the resident given her mother’s medical conditions. It also told the resident it had an obligation to investigate the counter complaints that had been made against her and it would shortly be introducing a noise app. This was appropriate.
The landlord undertook a joint visit to the building with the police on 11 August 2022 and spoke to the neighbour alleged to be causing noise. This was appropriate and demonstrated it took a multiagency approach to address the resident’s concerns. She denied making noise but agreed to approach the resident herself.
The neighbour contacted the landlord on 12 August 2022 and confirmed she had spoken to the resident about the noise. She also confirmed her property was carpeted but she was willing to lay a thicker rug given the resident said she could hear loud banging. She noted she was not deliberately making a noise and that noise travelled through the building.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm with the resident on 15 August 2022 that it would not investigate normal household noise that occurred during the day. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It also told the resident the issue with subletting had been resolved and reminded her to keep diary sheets of any incidents that occurred. A further reminder was sent on 23 August 2022.
The resident confirmed on 23 August 2023 that she could no longer smell cannabis, but she could hear intimate sexual noises from the other property. The landlord suggested the resident speak to her neighbour in accordance with its ASB policy which says it expects residents to talk to their neighbours to resolve any noise related problems. It again offered the services of a professional witness to capture any other noise from the property.
The housing records confirm the resident’s ASB case was closed on 1 September 2022 in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. It said this was because the issues regarding drug use had been resolved and the tenant had returned to the property. It noted the issue of noise from the other property was due to poor soundproofing, but a warning had been issued in relation to the allegations of intimate sexual noises. This was not proportionate in the circumstances. It also noted it had offered to use a professional witness or install noise monitoring equipment, but the resident said she did not want anyone in her home. The landlord advised the resident to submit diary sheets and contact the council regarding the noise. This was in accordance with its ASB policy.
Further reports of noise nuisance were received in September 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for copies of her diary sheets and to again offer mediation and the services of professional witness. This demonstrated it was prepared to use all the tools available to it in accordance with its ASB policy. It also confirmed again that it would not investigate household noise.
The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the witness identified by the resident on 26 September 2022, but no response was received. It also wrote to her neighbour about the noise and provided the resident with an update. This was appropriate and ensured the resident was kept updated.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2022 that it had taken a number of steps to resolve her reports of ASB. This included noting it had liaised with the police, issued warning letters and investigated her reports of subletting. It also noted it had been in regular communication with the resident, had provided regular updates and asked her for copies of diary sheets on a number of occasions. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it required evidence to progress with tenancy enforcement action and to ask the resident to report any further issues as and when they occurred. It was also appropriate for the landlord to agree to reopen the resident’s ASB case giving she said she had experience further ASB.
The landlord completed a case review on 6 October 2022 in accordance with its ASB policy. This ensured it assessed the actions it had taken were completed in accordance with its ASB policy. The review concluded there was no evidence to corroborate the resident’s reports of ASB and it had received counter claims from a neighbour. The action plan was refreshed.
Further reports of noise were reported by the resident between October 2022 and January 2023. The housing records confirm the landlord contacted other residents living in the block to establish if they experienced noise nuisance, offered to contact the resident on a weekly basis and agreed to instal CCTV equipment in the communal hallway. This demonstrated it took a holistic approach to addressing the resident’s concerns and wanted to prevent further problems from occurring. It also carried out further case reviews and advised the resident the noise app had been introduced. The housing records confirm the resident was updated regularly in accordance with its ASB policy. This included noting that it had not received reports of ASB from other neighbours or feedback from a witness identified by the resident.
The landlord also met the resident on 11 November 2022 to discuss her concerns in more detail. This demonstrated it wanted to work with her to put things right. It agreed to review its decision to issue its final warning letter. This demonstrated it was being transparent and open to challenge. The landlord noted it had offered a range of options to capture the noise levels, but these were refused by the resident. There is no evidence the resident submitted an appeal of the decision to issue the final warning letter.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident on 6 December 2022 and 9 December 2022 how she would like to progress the action plan. There is no evidence the resident responded to the requests. She declined the landlord’s offer to meet again on 21 December 2022 and said she did not want noise monitoring equipment or a professional witness in her home given her mother’s medical circumstances. This meant the landlord was unable to progress the matter further for the resident.
The landlord confirmed on 28 December 2022 the reason why it issued a first and final warning to the resident. This included noting it received reports of 2 disturbances which occurred in quick succession. It also noted the incidents were witnessed by a number of residents and there was also audio evidence. The landlord’s actions were in accordance with its ASB policy which says it will not just consider the frequency of incidents when issuing warning letters, but also the nature and severity of the tenancy breach. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that it could have been clearer with the resident when it issued the final warning, why it had done so. This demonstrated it had learnt from the resident’s complaint.
The resident told the landlord on 5 May 2023 that she had been subject to abuse from members of the TRA. This included waving and clapping whilst her mother was escorted into an ambulance. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond on 10 May 2023 and note it was liaising with the police over the matter and would contact the witness identified by the resident. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and it wanted to work with her to address her concerns. Counter claims were made on the same day by the TRA and a neighbour. A joint visit was carried out with the police on 18 May 2023, although details were not provided to this Service.
The resident told the landlord on 25 May 2023 that a TRA member stared at her in an intimidating manner and filmed her mother. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would contact the person concerned to discuss the issue further. It also advised the resident to contact the police if she had any further concerns. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 16 August 2023 that she needed to report criminal activity to the police and to note it did not have powers to apprehend people alleged to have broken into a property or for spraying graffiti in the street. It also confirmed it would not investigate household noise or the incidents reported by the resident in which she alleged someone assaulted 2 delivery drivers. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that it was working closely with the police with regards to her reports of ASB and would assist with any inquiries it received regarding the incidents. This demonstrated it continued to take a multi-agency approach to address the resident’s concerns.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to note that it had offered to install noise monitoring equipment on 31 August 2023 and was awaiting the resident’s response. It noted the resident could use the noise app in the interim which had been helpful in identifying noise nuisance in similar cases. The landlord confirmed a member of staff would be in touch with regard to the issues she raised about the TRA.
The resident told the landlord on 22 August 2023 that she disagreed with the findings in its second stage 1 response. She said her request to discuss her concerns with a particular member of staff had been blocked and her request for a meeting had been ignored. She told the landlord on 27 August 2023 that she had been subject to further intimidation by TRA members. This included noting they held a meeting in a resident’s property, congregated outside and spread lies about her. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these concerns. She also said her neighbour had dragged furniture across the balcony. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident’s neighbour on 29 August 2023, who confirmed she was cleaning her balcony for 1 hour in the afternoon.
It was reasonable for the landlord to meet the resident on 13 September 2023 to discuss her concerns in more detail. This demonstrated it wanted to work with her and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. The resident agreed noise monitoring equipment could be installed and she would send the landlord the evidence she had confirming her neighbour had contacted her employer. There is no evidence she did this. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the delivery companies and paramedics who took her mother to hospital. This was in accordance with its ASB policy.
The landlord confirmed on 19 December 2022 that it had contacted the delivery companies and paramedics identified by the resident but had been informed they could not share any information for data protection reasons. It said it would work with the police if any of its tenants were identified as being involved in the assault or ASB. It also said it contacted the witness identified by the resident but had received no response. The landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint about her neighbour contacting her employer was outside its jurisdiction. This was not appropriate given there was an ongoing dispute and potential evidence that may confirm the resident was being harassed by her neighbour. It also said it had spoken to the chair of the TRA, who denied the allegations made.
In summary, the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. This included asking her to complete diary sheets, offering mediation and the services of a professional witness, issuing warnings, contacting witnesses and asking other residents to report ASB. It confirmed with the resident on numerous occasions that it would not investigate reports of household noise. It also kept the resident updated, regularly updated the action plan and undertook case reviews in accordance with its ASB policy. The lack of evidence meant the landlord was unable to progress the matter for the resident. While a number of negative findings were identified during this investigation, these do not constitute a service failure. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claims that she was unfairly sanctioned for causing ASB.

The landlord received a report on 3 October 2022 that the resident had verbally abused her neighbour on 1 October 2022. An audio recording was also provided to support the allegations made, along with a witness statement. A further incident occurred on 2 October 2022 when it was alleged the resident’s mother assaulted her neighbour.
The landlord issued the resident with a first and final warning letter on 4 October 2022. It said this was because of reports of ASB on 25 September 2022, 1 October 2022 and 2 October 2022. It said it would consider issuing legal proceedings if any further reports of ASB were received. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy which says it will take proportionate action based on the nature of the ASB, the frequency of the incidents and the impact the behaviour has on others.
A further report of ASB was received on 10 May 2023 in which it was alleged the resident called her neighbour a prostitute. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact witnesses identified by the resident’s neighbour and to seek legal advice. This demonstrated it took the reports seriously, was open minded and willing to gather evidence. There is, however, no evidence the landlord discussed the allegations with the resident. This was a failure. The legal advice confirmed there were a number of options available to the landlord including serving a section 21 notice or a notice of seeking possession. It was also noted that serving a section 21 notice would ‘‘give the resident far less scope to be able to challenge the claim.’’
The landlord served a section 21 notice on the resident on 7 August 2023. While the landlord was legally entitled to do this and its actions were in accordance with its ASB policy, it was not fair or proportionate in the circumstances given the nature and frequency of the alleged ASB. There is no evidence the landlord considered seeking a civil remedy through the courts such as using an injunction or serving a notice of seeking possession. Such actions provide residents with the opportunity to modify their behaviour before landlords seek eviction. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will consider all the tools available before seeking possession. That it did not so here was a failure.
In summary, the landlord’s initial actions were fair in the circumstances. It sought witness statements and issued a final warning letter in accordance with its ASB policy. It did not, however, later consider other legal options before serving a section 21 notice. The landlord’s actions were heavy handed and not fair in the circumstances. This caused the resident significant inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s claims that she had been unfairly sanctioned for causing ASB for which it is ordered to pay the resident £500.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.

It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen. Rather, this investigations centres on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether it acted reasonably and in line with good practice and any relevant policies.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 4 August 2023 that she was not happy with the conduct of a member of staff. In particular she noted they shouted at her during a telephone call and she did not like their line of questioning. She also said the member of staff disclosed personal information about another resident to her.
The housing records confirm the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns. This included listening to the telephone calls between the member of staff and the resident. A learning session was also held with the member of staff and a plan of action agreed to address identified points of learning. The landlord also arranged for the member of staff to receive further training. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2023 that the member of staff could have handled the telephone call better. It apologised for this and confirmed that a learning session had taken place with the member of staff concerned. It also confirmed training had been organised and the member of staff took on board the feedback. This demonstrated the landlord learnt from the complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm no personal information was shared with the resident and to note that the line of questioning was in accordance with its policy. The landlord also said it listened to the follow up call between the member of staff and resident and was satisfied with his professionalism.
The landlord offered a further apology in its final complaint response on 19 September 2023. It also acknowledged the resident wanted a personal apology from the member of staff. This was done on 13 October 2023 and helped rebuild trust with the resident.
In summary, the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. This included listening to the telephone calls, providing feedback to the member of staff and offering further training. It also offered the resident an apology. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.

Although this Service is not able to make a legally binding decision as to whether discrimination has taken place (this would be for the courts to decide on) in this case we are able to investigate whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of discrimination by its staff.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 9 June 2022 that she had been subject to discrimination on the grounds of her race. She said she was made to feel she was the problem and the landlord did not have her best interest at heart. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident or sought to understand her concerns. This was a failure on the part of the landlord and meant it did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
The landlord noted in an equality impact assessment completed on 11 October 2022 that the resident had accused it of discriminating against her on the grounds of her race. While it said the ‘‘accusations were completely without substance and were factually incorrect,’’ there is no evidence it carried out a meaningful investigation into her claims. This was a failure on the part of the landlord. It is vital that investigations into allegations of discrimination are fully documented to ensure full transparency.
The resident told the landlord on 3 November 2022 that it had failed to acknowledge her concerns and there was a culture of victimisation and discrimination in the organisation. She said she had been left in a life-threatening situation and this was because of the colour of her skin. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident or her subsequent email of 28 November 2022 in which she noted her complaint had been misconstrued. This was a further failure.
The landlord told the resident on 12 December 2022 that the member of staff who was investigating her complaint had not been made aware of anyone’s race when reviewing the evidence. This lack of awareness and assumption that this was sufficient to respond to the resident’s discrimination claim evidences that the landlord did not take her complaint seriously. It failed to take account of her protected characteristics, identify her specific concerns and did not carry out a meaningful investigation into her claims of discrimination in accordance with its obligations under the Equality Act. This was a further failure on the part of the landlord.
While the landlord said in its final complaint response on 28 December 2022 that it found no evidence to suggest the resident was treated differently based on the colour of her skin, it did not provide this Service with any evidence about its investigation.
In addition, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s claims of discrimination made on 10 May 2023, 6 July 2023 or 5 August 2023.
In summary, the landlord did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010. It failed to take account of the resident’s protected characteristics, did not seek to understand her concerns and failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into her allegations of discrimination.
It is evident the resident raised concerns on a number of occasions, but the landlord did not respond to many of these. When it did respond, it lacked awareness of its responsibilities and gave generalised responses. The landlord also failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failure to act on the resident’s concerns. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s claims that she was unfairly sanctioned for causing ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failure to respond to the resident’s reports of discrimination as set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its response to her claims that she had been unfairly sanctioned for causing ASB.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of her reports of discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case within 12 weeks of the date of this report. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. A review of its working practices and staff training arrangements in relation to its failure to investigate the resident’s reports of racial discrimination to ensure it better responds to resident’s concerns and meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
3. A review its approach to using section 21 notices for ASB cases in light of the findings in this report.