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

Westward Housing Group Limited (202305098)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305098

Westward Housing Group Limited

15 January 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and her request for a management move.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in August 2011. The property is a first floor 2–bedroom flat.
  2. The resident’s complaint relates to ASB from an adult neighbour and their child which she felt was racially motivated. This included allegations of racist comments towards the resident’s child from the neighbour’s child, a physical altercation between the children, and comments from the adult neighbour. For the purpose of this report, both the adult neighbour and their child will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  3. On 4 August 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour had made racist comments to her child. The landlord advised the resident to report the matter to the police and the children’s school. It also asked her to keep a diary of events.
  4. On 12 September 2022, the resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number in relation to the racist comments. She also made the landlord aware of an incident that occurred on 9 September 2022 where the neighbour allegedly slapped her child and called them names.
  5. In October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times saying that she “really need[ed] to speak to someone” regarding the ASB issues. She highlighted a further incident where the neighbour had approached her child and said, “everybody hates you”. The case notes show that the resident was advised that there was no housing officer covering her area at that time.
  6. On 17 November 2022, the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on her behalf saying she was following up on “the hate crime”. The landlord liaised with the councillor on 22 November 2022, explaining that there was information on its website in relation to hate crime and that the resident should complete its online hate crime form when reporting it. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and said that it would be visiting the neighbour with the police in relation to the alleged hate crime. The resident also said she needed a bigger property, and the landlord advised her to register on its mutual exchange scheme.
  7. On 13 December 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the alleged hate crime incident. It then updated the resident the same day and enquired as to what support she had in place. The resident confirmed she was being supported by an external agency and her child’s school.
  8. On 24 March 2023, the local councillor contacted the landlord requesting an update in relation to the resident being rehoused. The case notes say that the landlord explained to the councillor that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move following the hate crime allegation. It went on to say that it had not received any further reports from the resident, and that the police did not have any recent incidents logged.
  9. On 30 March 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. It referred to her request for a larger property and again advised that she should register with its mutual exchange scheme.
  10. On 11 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not received a response to a complaint she made on 4 May 2023 in relation to moving. She said that she had also sent a “doctor’s letter”. She said that she had been offered a management move and then later advised that she did not meet the criteria. She gave details of a recent incident where her child was playing outside, and the neighbour reportedly threatened to throw a ball in their face. The case notes show that the landlord advised the resident to take her child to the park and play to “reduce the opportunity of problems occurring”.
  11. On 6 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to a further complaint she said she had made on 11 May 2023 as she had not received a response. The case notes show the landlord explained that there had been no communications logged for that date and to resubmit the online form. On 13 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm if her “complaint form” had been received, as she said she had called twice and it was still not processed. The landlord suggested logging it over the phone and the resident said she would call back with the details. The case notes said that the resident did not want an official complaint to be logged at that stage.
  12. On 28 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to a management move. She said she was advised that the issue would be raised at a team meeting. She also said that she would like any response in writing. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2023 explaining that during team meetings housing officers would share details of household that were looking to move so that they may be able to be linked on its mutual exchange scheme.
  13. On 30 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord outlining 16 incidents that had occurred between 4 August 2022 and 27 July 2023. This included comments from the neighbour, her child being slapped by the neighbour, and threats of vandalism towards her car. The resident said that she felt the incidents were motivated by hate and that her child was “hugely affected” by what had happened.
  14. This Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and a stage 1 complaint was raised on 3 August 2023. The resident was unhappy with the handling of her ASB case and the level of communication from the landlord. She said that she wanted assistance with a management move. On 7 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. She said that she felt unsupported by the landlord as it said there was nothing it could do in relation to the ASB.
  15. On 8 August 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that she found a nail in her tyre and suspected it was the neighbour who put it there. She said she did not report the issue to the police.
  16. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It apologised for not logging the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in May 2023. It said that the police had not taken any further action in relation to the incidents she had reported, which made it difficult for the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action. It accepted it should have addressed the ASB reports and was sorry that it had not. It went on to explain that the resident did not satisfy the criteria for an urgent move based on the reports she had provided. It also said that it was sorry the information she was provided around a management move was misleading, and offered £75 compensation.
  17. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 12 August 2023. She said that the stage 1 response did not resolve anything for her and her family, who had “suffered mentally for the past year”. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 17 August 2023. It also sent a holding response on 14 September 2023, saying that it had tried to contact the resident to discuss and would send a full response within 10 working days.
  18. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It apologised for any distress the resident had experienced as a result of the case. It said it had acknowledged its failings at stage 1 in relation to not logging the complaint in a timely manner and its communication to the resident in relation to the hate crime being a police matter and not for the landlord to deal with. It said that it had worked with the police to challenge the behaviour with the family of the child involved and was satisfied that this was a suitable outcome. It said it had not received any further reports in relation to hate crime and that the resident was being supported by an external agency and the child’s school. It reiterated its previous offer of £75 compensation.
  19. The resident remained unhappy, and the landlord directed her to this Service. On 25 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident saying that in preparing its files for this Service, it had discovered some correspondence it wanted to speak to the resident about, which may affect the outcome of her complaint. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2024 declining its increased compensation offer of £250. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of this offer.
  20. During recent contact with the resident she said that she felt the neighbour could “do what they wanted” and “just get away with a warning” from the landlord.
  21. Following a request for further information in relation to its decision making process regarding a management move, the landlord said that:
    1. The hate related incident reported was a single verbal incident between 2 minors. It was investigated by the police with no further action being taken. The case was not considered a high risk situation that would require a move for safety reasons.
    2. While the incident may have been addressed, there was an impact on the resident and her children, and it therefore ensured that she was being supported.
    3. No further racially motivated incidents were reported, but aggressive behaviour from the neighbour during play was recorded. There was no evidence to suggest a pattern of behaviour.
    4. It felt that effective ASB management could resolve the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on the health of her family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. This Service acknowledges that this has been a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her request for a management move

  1. The landlord’s website categorises racial abuse – where abuse is targeted at someone’s race, culture, country of origin or immigration status –  as a hate crime. It encourages victims to report any such incidents to the police. It goes on to say that within 24 hours of receiving a report of a hate crime, victims will be contacted to arrange a home visit or meeting at a specified location. It says that during the visit, it will:
    1. Listen and gather supporting information.
    2. Outline the options available, which include:
      1. Referral to support agencies including Victim Support and the police.
      2. Contacting witnesses and gathering further evidence
      3. Taking action against the perpetrator.
    3. Upon agreeing a course of action, keep victims updated and review the case.
  2. The landlord’s allocation policy, which includes management moves, says that in exceptional circumstances it will consider rehousing residents outside of the choice based letting system where there is serious harassment or victimisation.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that upon receiving a report of ASB, it will:
    1. Assess and monitor risk.
    2. Develop an action plan with the complainant, being clear and realistic about potential outcomes and choosing from a toolkit of different actions. Early intervention tools include mediation, warnings, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    3. Advise the complainant that they will be expected to play an active role in supporting the investigation – for example, by keeping diary sheets and reporting crime to the police.
  4. The evidence shows that on 4 August 2022 the resident reported racist comments from the neighbour that were aimed at her child. The landlord’s website categorises racist abuse as a hate crime. The landlord advised the resident that the issue should be reported to the police and the child’s school. Furthermore, it said she should keep a diary of events. This was correct and in line with its policy for investigating hate crime and its ASB policy. However, in relation to hate crime it commits to visiting victims within 24 hours. This Service notes that the incident was between 2 minors. Nevertheless, the landlord should have visited the resident as per its policy. Its failure to do so was not appropriate. Visiting the resident would have demonstrated that it was taking her complaint seriously and presented an opportunity to identify what support was available to the resident. In addition, it was a missed opportunity to identify any other potential issues in relation to ASB with the neighbour.
  5. Government guidance on “putting victims first” under the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014 helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with antisocial individuals. In accordance with this guidance, it is best practice for landlords to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. The landlord failed to carry out a risk assessment of the case or prepare an action plan as per its ASB policy, which was not appropriate.
  6. The resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number following the incident on 12 September 2022. She also made it aware of another incident which involved a physical altercation between the children. On 11, 18 and 20 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update saying she “really needed” to speak to someone about the ASB issues. Despite this, the landlord failed to show that it responded to the resident in any meaningful way. It advised her that the housing officer position for her area was vacant. It was unreasonable that the resident could not speak to a member of staff due to staff shortages, when it was clear that she was distressed and wanted to discuss her concerns. In order to ensure continuity of effective service delivery, a landlord should have robust measures in place so that residents are not disadvantaged by resourcing issues.
  7. As a result of intervention by the local councillor, the landlord contacted the resident on 22 November 2022. This was 50 working days from her initial contact of 12 September 2022, and constituted an unreasonable delay, especially as the resident had chased the landlord a further 3 times in October 2022. The landlord explained to the resident that it had spoken to the police and was planning to visit the neighbour. It also suggested that she register on its mutual exchange scheme. The case notes show that a visit was carried out on 13 December 2022. While it was appropriate that the landlord visited the neighbour in relation to the incident, it was not appropriate that it took 92 working days to do so following the report of 4 August 2022. The evidence shows that the resident reported 2 other incidents in September and October 2022. Early intervention is vital to prevent matters from escalating. The landlord failed to show that it considered any of its early intervention tools such as mediation, which could have been offered to the adults in this situation in an attempt to prevent further deterioration of neighbourly relationships.
  8. On 24 March 2023, the local councillor contacted the landlord in relation to a management move for the resident. The landlord updated the councillor saying it had liaised with police regarding the hate crime and the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move. It suggested that she had been advised to register for a mutual exchange. On 30 March and 3 April 2023, the landlord discussed moving options with the resident. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its allocations policy, which says that management moves will be offered in exceptional circumstances. Based on the evidence seen, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the decision that the criteria had not been met at this point.
  9. On 11 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord chasing a response to a complaint she said she made on 4 May 2023. She said that this was in relation to a management move that she was initially offered and then later refused. She said she was still having issues with the neighbour and her children could not play outside. The case notes show that the landlord advised the resident to take her children to the park to play instead to “reduce the opportunity of problems occurring”. This was an inappropriate and unsympathetic response, which failed to address the root issue and had the effect of deflecting blame onto the resident.
  10. On 28 June and 11 July 2023, the resident and landlord liaised regarding a management move. The resident said she had been advised the move would be discussed at a team meeting. The landlord explained that during team meetings housing officers would share details of households that were looking to move so that they may be able to be linked on its mutual exchange scheme. This Service has not had sight of any case notes that indicate the resident was informed her case would be discussed at a team meeting, nor any evidence of a management move being offered. Therefore, the explanation provided to the resident was reasonable.
  11. On 30 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord outlining 16 incidents that had occurred between 4 August 2022 and 27 July 2023. Of these, 5 of the events have been evidenced as reported to the landlord. The resident said that she felt the incidents were motivated by hate and that her child was “hugely affected” by what had happened. There is no evidence that the landlord responded, which was not appropriate. This likely contributed to the resident’s feelings of being deprioritised or disbelieved, as well as avoidably prolonging her distress.
  12. A stage 1 complaint was raised on 3 August 2023 regarding the landlord’s handing of the resident’s ASB reports and its level of communication with her. She had said that she felt unsupported by the landlord and wanted assistance with a management move. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 August 2023. It said that the police had not pursued the hate crime incident, which made it difficult for it to take any tenancy enforcement action. It apologised that it had not addressed her reports of ASB. It also said that she did not satisfy the criteria for an urgent move based on the reports, and it was sorry for any misleading information she was provided. It encouraged the resident to utilise its mutual exchange scheme and offered her £75 compensation. While the mutual exchange suggestion was reasonable, the landlord did not go far enough to explain its failings in relation to its handling of her ASB case or offer any meaningful resolution for the resident.
  13. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 12 August 2023, and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 September 2023. The response was detailed and sympathetic which was appropriate. It outlined the action it took in addressing the hate crime incident of 4 August 2022. It noted that the resident had reported further incidents of ASB and feeling intimidated by the neighbour. It said it would contact her to discuss the matters further and explain what action it could take. Nevertheless, the landlord could have taken the opportunity to outline what tools were available to address the ASB. This omission was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate that it was taking her reports seriously or adopting a “putting victims first” approach.
  14. In summary, while the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s complaint in relation to a management move, it failed to follow its policy in relation to the hate crime incident. It took 92 working days to visit the neighbour in relation to the reported hate crime, despite the resident reporting further ASB issues in September and October. It also failed to carry out key actions such as carrying out a risk assessment and drawing up an action plan, which was contrary to its ASB policy. The landlord advised this Service in January 2025 that “any actions planned as part of the management of the case” were recorded on its system. Nevertheless, this does not demonstrate that a formal action plan was completed with the resident, which should include target dates by which the actions were to take place. Had a formal action plan been implemented with target dates, this could have avoided the 92 working day delay in visiting the neighbour. The landlord also advised that it revised its ASB policy in September 2023 putting greater emphasis on the need for carrying out a risk assessment of its ASB cases.
  15. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and at times unsympathetic. She was provided with incorrect information in relation to the hate crime. After she chased the landlord for updates 3 times in October 2022, she was advised that the housing officer post was vacant in her area. She made further contact with the landlord again in July 2023 and there was no evidence that this was responded to.
  16. This Service notes that the landlord reiterated its offer of £75 compensation in its final response. Its compensation policy notes this to be reflective of “high impact” on a resident with “serious failure in service standards”. Nevertheless, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact on the resident or put things right. While there is some indication of increased compensation having been offered in June or July 2024, no confirmation or breakdown of this has been provided, and due to the timing it could not be considered reasonable redress (even if sufficient).
  17. Therefore, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. As a result, £350 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration had been found and where the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states that there are 2 internal stages and an independent review stage to its formal complaints process. The landlord aims to offer a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at stage 2, the policy states that the customer can take their complaint to an independent panel arranged by the landlord or refer the complaint to this Service.
  2. The resident explained to the landlord on 11 May 2023 that she had tried to raise a formal complaint online on 4 May 2023. The case notes show that the landlord asked the resident to resubmit the complaint online. This was unhelpful and delayed a resolution for the resident.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2023 requesting confirmation that it had received her online complaint form from 11 May 2023. The landlord advised the resident that there were “no communications” logged for that date and again said that she should resubmit the complaint. This was not appropriate and represented another missed opportunity to raise a stage 1 complaint for the resident. In view of the repeated issues with submitting the complaint form, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assist the resident in making the complaint and/or agree to follow up so she had some assurance it had been successfully received.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 June 2023, once more requesting confirmation that her online complaint form had been received as she had chased the matter twice and it had not been progressed. The landlord suggested logging the complaint over the phone, which was appropriate and resolution focused. However, the resident said she would access the form and call back with the details. The case notes go on to say that the resident “did not want an official complaint logged at this stage”. Internal emails said that “at this point she seems to be wanting clarity, and we may be able to resolve that with a conversation before escalating to a complaint (if that is what the customer ultimately wants)”. The landlord went on to say, “if the customer remains unhappy with the response it should be escalated to a complaint”. This was reasonable given that the resident had changed her mind in relation to making a formal complaint.
  5. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023 requesting that it raise a stage 1 complaint for the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 August 2023 to discuss the complaint. This was an appropriate step to ensure it had a good understanding of the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023 and apologised for the mishandling of the initial stage 1 complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy timescale.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 12 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 August 2023. It also sent a holding response on 14 September 2023, saying it had tried to contact the resident over the phone and that it would provide a full response within 10 working days. The resident responded on 15 September 2023 saying she was unable to speak on the phone as it “causes [too] much stress”. The same day the resident contacted this Service saying she was “confused” at receiving 2 letters of acknowledgement for her complaint. She was unclear when she would be receiving a response. The landlord’s holding response was sent 3 working days after the final response was due, which caused the resident some uncertainty. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have informed her in advance of the delay and its anticipated response date.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. This was 30 working days after the stage 2 escalation request and 10 working days outside of its policy timescale, which was not appropriate.
  8. In summary, the landlord failed to initially raise the stage 1 complaint despite being aware of the difficulties the resident had using the online complaint form, in turn delaying a resolution for her. Its communication following the stage 2 escalation request was confusing for the resident because it failed to inform her in advance that it would be delayed in providing a final response. The final response was sent 10 working days outside of its policy timescale, which further delayed a resolution to her complaint.
  9. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As a result, £150 compensation has been awarded. This is in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has been found and the landlord has acknowledged some failings but made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her request for a management move.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £500, made up of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of ASB.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, it should highlight the need to take a victim centred approach, and ensure risk assessments and action plans are completed, monitored, and updated regularly.
    4. Provide the resident and this Service with an update regarding its proposed action in relation to the ASB. Should it decide no action is necessary, it should provide details as to what considerations it made in coming to the decision.
    5. If appropriate, give consideration to what additional support is available to the resident.
    6. Arrange for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online complaint handling courses, dispute resolution and applying dispute resolution for landlords, if this has not been done recently.