Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202234807)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234807

Orbit Housing Association Limited

16 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In August 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that a member of staff who was also a neighbour was harassing her and had breached her personal data. The landlord completed an investigation of this in August 2021. In November 2023, the resident reported that another neighbour had a camera overlooking her property. The landlord’s records show the resident had made previous ASB reports about this neighbour.
  3. On 27 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she had not received a call back from the landlord about her report of ASB. The resident reported a further incident of ASB from her neighbour on 26 March 2024. The landlord’s records showed a call from the resident on 26 March 2024 about a visitor of the neighbour verbally abusing her son and using “racial slurs.” The resident followed this up with an email and video footage.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 28 March 2024. It apologsied for the delay in responding to the resident about her report of ASB. It said this was due to a member of staff being on leave. The landlord said it had arranged mediation for both parties for 28 March 2024. It said it understood both parties had been issued with community protection warnings. which were being monitored by the police. The landlord said it would be offering further advice on the issue with CCTV and that the resident may wish to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about this. It apologsied for the delay in response to the ASB report. It offered the resident £75 of compensation for the delays in handling the complaint and a £100 goodwill payment for “stress and inconvenience.”
  5. On 12 April 2024, the resident told the landlord in an email that she did not accept the stage 1 response. The resident said she had made numerous attempts to contact the landlord over several months. She said the issues remained unresolved. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2024 to escalate her complaint.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024. It said the resident had requested information about the outcome of a complaint about a staff member. The landlord said it was unable to provide information about its internal investigations into staff. It confirmed the staff member no longer worked for it. The landlord said it had looked into the issues with the neighbour’s CCTV camera. It said it did not have a record of a report the racial abuse experienced by the resident’s child. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the matter further. It acknowledged its communication about the ASB had been poor and offered the resident a further £100 compensation.
  7. The resident informed this Service in November 2024 that although the neighbour involved in the ASB had now moved, she wanted to request a management move to feel safe. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response times and the action taken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The evidence shows a history of ASB reports by the resident. While the historical issues provided context and to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2023 until the end of the complaints process. This is because, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. Some of the issues raised by the resident with the Ombudsman (such as the resident’s request for a management move and further reports of ASB) relate to matters following the end of the complaint process. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, to which the landlord sent its final response in May 2024. Any issues or requests arising after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
  3. Part of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct included concerns about a breach of her personal data. The resident’s complaint about ASB in November 2023 included concerns about a neighbour’s CCTV cameras. How the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 would be a matter for the ICO to consider. This investigation considers what the landlord said in response to the resident’s concerns about this issue, but the resident should consider contacting the ICO to discuss any overall concerns she may have about her personal data and how it may be being captured and used.
  4. The resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. This investigation is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury or insurance claim, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says if an allegation meets its definition, an ASB case will be immediately opened and categorised as either A or B. Category A includes verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation. It will respond to category A cases within 1 working day and category B cases within 3 working days of receiving an allegation.
  2. The policy says the landlord will carry out a risk-based assessment and will agree an action plan with each complainant or witness, which will include how and when it will keep in contact, managing expectations and how it intends to manage the case. It says any action taken will be proportionate to the type of allegation made. Any action taken will be one of, or a combination of: preventative measures, other interventions, enforcement and legal action. It works proactively with other professional organisations such as the police.
  3. The landlord’s compensation guidance says payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, distress and inconvenience of a service failure. It says for poor complaint handling, payments of up to £150 may be made in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience.
  4. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. It is evident that the landlord opened an ASB case in response to the resident’s report in November 2023 that her neighbour had installed a motorised camera overlooking the communal area. Although it is not clear when the case was opened. The landlord’s internal correspondence stated it visited the resident on 14 February 2024 to provide an update on her case. However, this was almost 3 months after the resident had initially raised her report. The evidence shows the report was being considered as part of ongoing ASB reports by both the resident and neighbour, but this timeframe was excessive. It did not meet the timeframes in the landlord’s ASB policy. There was no evidence of the landlord providing an update to the resident in the meantime.
  6. The landlord provided evidence to this Service showing it had investigated the neighbour’s CCTV. Its internal complaint records stated there was no further action it could take on this. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated it would provide further advice on this during its visit on 28 March 2024 and advised the resident to contact the ICO. This was an appropriate action. However, the final response stated the landlord was looking into the matter. It was not clear if the outcome of its investigation was communicated to the resident in writing.
  7. The evidence the landlord provided to this Service showed that the resident had contacted the landlord on a number of occasions following her report in November 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord risk assessing the resident’s situation and reports or agreeing an action plan with her. As such she did not know how the landlord intended to manage the case, or when the landlord would be providing an update. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, and meant the landlord did not demonstrate a customer focused approach and failed to set the resident’s expectations on the actions it could or could not take.
  8. In its final complaint response on 15 May 2024 the landlord addressed an issue which it said the resident had raised about its lack of contact following her report of racial abuse aimed at one of her children. It explained that it did not have a record of her report. However, the landlord’s contact records noted the resident reporting this incident on 26 March 2024, and an email from the child’s school was received on 15 April 2024 which referenced it. The landlord’s complaint response makes clear that it was not aware the issue had been raised with it. That was a failing.
  9. It is evident that the landlord engaged in multiagency working with the police in regard to the ASB reports involving the resident and neighbour, and the CCTV cameras. Given the previous ASB reports by the resident and counter ASB reports, this was an appropriate action. The landlord’s engagement with the police on the ASB repots demonstrated the landlord using the measures set out in its ASB policy.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said mediation had been arranged for the resident and the neighbour. This was an appropriate action by the landlord. It demonstrated the landlord taking a proportionate intervention as set out in its ASB policy. The landlord’s records stated a visit to both parties on 28 March 2024, and both the resident and neighbour signed good neighbour contracts. This demonstrated a proportionate approach by the landlord at this time.
  11. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s reports. It explained how the delay occurred, and also acknowledged some of its communication with her had been poor. It apologised and provided compensation. However, the landlord did not identify that it had not followed its policy steps to conduct a risk assessment and create an action plan with the resident. These steps would have provided reassurance to the resident and helped the landlord manage her expectations.
  12. While the landlord was unable to resolve the ongoing reports of ASB by the time of its final complaint response, the actions it had taken were appropriate to the circumstances of the reports. However, communication was poor, and important steps from its ASB policy do not appear to have been taken in regard to risk assessing the situation and agreeing an action plan. It then failed to recognise and address the resident’s further report of abuse during its complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident reports about staff conduct.

  1. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident raised concerns about the outcome of a complaint about the conduct of a staff member. However, the landlord included this in its final response. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. In other words, the actions of any individual officer are the landlord’s actions.
  2. In its final response, the landlord stated it was unable to provide information about internal investigations of its staff. Considering the nature of the investigation and the confidential human resources processes involved this was a reasonable response.
  3. From the records the landlord provided this Service, it is evident that the landlord had carried out a full investigation into the concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of a staff member at the time. This demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The information provided about the outcome was limited due to the confidential nature of the internal investigations. This was confirmed to the resident in the landlord’s final response. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports about ASB. This amount is inclusive of the £275 it previously offered during its complaint responses. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.