Abri Group Limited (202120406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120406

Abri Group Limited

31 August 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial harassment.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination in its handling of racial harassment.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed in the area.
4. The landlord’s handling of reported repairs to the resident’s windows.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of one of its staff.
6. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a three-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 18 June 2012 and, at the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord had a vulnerability marker on the resident’s account due to mental health vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions state: “You must not harass anyone on any grounds including race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability that may interfere with the peace and comfort of, or cause offence to, other persons in the locality…”. The tenancy conditions also state: “You are responsible for the behaviour of everyone (including children) living in or visiting your property”.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the main structure and exterior of the property repaired, including the window frames.

Summary of events

On 19 June 2020, the resident phoned the landlord to report that possessions had been stolen from her car while parked near the property. The resident requested that the landlord to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 June 2020 regarding the theft from her car and said it would book a job to repair the outside light after 1 July 2020. The landlord explained that there were complications involved in installing CCTV, such as identifying a power source, identifying funding and making arrangements for the footage to be monitored or reviewed. The landlord said it “could look to see if it would be possible” to install CCTV in the resident’s part of the close.
On 26 February 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to report that two windows at the front of her property had been damaged. The police were present at the property while the resident made the call. On the same day, the landlord boarded up the windows to make them safe. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not raise a follow-on order at the time to reglaze the windows as it was unaware of who had broken the windows.
On 1 March 2021, the police completed a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) report, which was shared with the landlord, indicating that the windows had been broken by the resident’s ex-partner.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2021 to ask when the windows would be reglazed. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order and the reglazing was completed on 17 May 2021. The notes to the job state that the landlord had decided to waive the rechargeable costs for the reglazing work.
On 26 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had been racially abused by the same person who had assaulted her in 2019. The alleged perpetrator was the partner of one of her neighbours and, according to the resident, had mouthed a racially abusive term to her. The landlord’s notes state that the resident provided the following additional information:
1. The resident’s purse and photographs had been stolen and subsequently found near the neighbour’s property.
2. Items had been stolen from the resident’s car.
3. The resident’s back gate had been “kicked in”.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on the same day (26 May 2021) to arrange to interview her.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 May 2021 to obtain more details about the incidents and to complete an action plan and a vulnerability risk assessment. The landlord’s records confirm that it noted the following points during the interview:
1. Children in the neighbourhood had been racially abusing the resident’s son while he was playing in the park.
2. The resident said she wanted a management move with her son and her daughter.
3. The resident said she did not require temporary accommodation as she would be staying with her mother over the weekend.
4. The resident had advised the landlord that the alleged incident involving the perpetrator mouthing a racially abusive term had not been witnessed by anyone else and therefore she did not intend to report the incident to the police.
5. The resident agreed that the landlord would speak to the neighbour about the incident.
The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 1 June 2021. The landlord’s notes indicate that the neighbour confirmed the alleged perpetrator was not living with her, but did occasionally visit her. The neighbour denied the allegations.
On 30 June 2021, the resident’s mother phoned the landlord to advise that the resident had not had any further contact from the landlord regarding the anti-social behaviour (ASB) she had reported in May 2021.
On 1 July 2021, the landlord submitted an information request form to the police requesting information about the alleged perpetrator and the resident.
The resident’s mother phoned the landlord on 2 July 2021 to complain about delays in repairs to the property and also reiterated that the resident was experiencing racial abuse from a neighbour.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her that it was closing the ASB case as there was insufficient evidence that the neighbour’s partner had mouthed a racist term, stolen items from the resident’s car or damaged her back gate. The landlord stated that it relied on the police taking action in relation to such matters and the resident had decided not to report the incidents to the police. The landlord had noted the resident’s wish to be considered for a management move, however, this was not appropriate because the resident was not at “serious risk of harm or death”. The landlord agreed, however, to refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment team to assist the resident in applying to go on the council’s housing register.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the police, the local authority and to the head of the primary school attended by the resident’s son to advise them of the reports of racial abuse that the resident and her son were experiencing.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 July 2021 and she stated that she was finding it difficult dealing with the landlord’s different departments in relation to her case. The landlord therefore phoned the resident on 16 July 2021 and provided her with a named contact who would be her main point of contact. The landlord also confirmed to the resident that it was arranging a MARAC meeting.
On 19 July 2021, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the management of her tenancy and the racism she had been experiencing within the neighbourhood. She advised the landlord that she was suffering from poor mental health. The landlord’s records indicate that it took the following action as a result of the conversation:
1. The landlord opened a safeguarding wellbeing concern case on its system and emailed the local authority’s adult social care team.
2. The landlord offered to contact Victim Support to provide additional support but the landlord’s records state that the resident declined this offer as she felt she already had sufficient support in place.
3. The landlord contacted the NHS community mental health team (CMHT) to establish if there were grounds for a management move and they replied to say they were unable to support a management transfer at that time.
4. The landlord’s tenancy sustainment team contacted the resident regarding the resident’s request to move but the landlord’s records state that she refused the offer of tenancy support.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that there were “several instances” when the landlord had failed to return the resident’s phone calls. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that feedback had been passed to the relevant staff in order to improve its services.
2. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in reglazing the resident’s windows and apologised for this. Again, the landlord confirmed that it had provided feedback to the relevant staff.
3. The landlord offered the resident £100 to put things right in relation to its failure to return the resident’s calls and the delay in reglazing the windows.
4. In terms of the ASB, the landlord had raised an ASB case on 26 May 2021 following a reported racial incident with a neighbour’s partner. The landlord and resident had discussed the incident “in-depth” on 28 May 2021 and there had been no further contact with the resident about the incident until the resident’s mother complained on 30 June 2021.
5. The landlord stated that during the period where it had not been in contact with the resident, it had been taking action “in the background in line with (its) ASB procedures”. However, the landlord accepted that a month without contact was “not helpful” and could have been improved with fortnightly contact. It had therefore fed this back to the relevant team for future cases.
6. The landlord had sent a case closure letter to the resident on 7 July 2021, in which it stated that the case would be closed due to insufficient evidence. The landlord had also noted that the resident did not wish to report the incident to the police.
7. The ASB case could not be re-opened unless further evidence or police action came to light.
8. The landlord confirmed that it was preparing to set up a MARAC meeting to engage with other agencies, such as the police and the local authority. The resident would also be able to attend the meeting.
On 23 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she did not accept the landlord’s findings set out in its stage one response. The resident stated that, in her view, the landlord’s processes were discriminatory, particularly in relation to closing the ASB case. She also believed the £100 compensation was insufficient.
The landlord’s records show that during July 2021 (from the information seen the exact date is unclear) the landlord completed a risk assessment scorecard with the resident to identify any support or protection needed by the resident. The scorecard indicates that the resident was receiving support from the CMHT.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2021 to confirm that she would not be prepared to downsize from her three bedroom property until her daughter was rehoused separately.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage two reply to the resident, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint that its processes discriminated against her because of her race. It stated that its policies and processes undergo an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and the landlord confirmed that its ASB and Harassment procedure had therefore been through an EIA.
2. The landlord had reviewed the action taken into the resident’s reports of ASB and had found no evidence that the resident had been dealt with differently due to her race.
3. The landlord had closed the ASB case due to insufficient evidence and because the resident did not wish to report the incident to the police. However, the landlord had still taken action to ensure support was in place for the resident, including contacting the CMHT to check if they supported a management move, offering to contact Victim Support and contacting other agencies about the resident’s son being racially abused.
4. The landlord’s view was that the £100 goodwill gesture offered at stage one was proportionate to recognise the delays in repairs and the lack of communication.
5. The landlord confirmed that it was developing a hate crime policy, which would be launched during the following month.
6. Its staff were being reminded of the importance of note taking and sharing action plans with resident’s.
7. The landlord had offered to set up a MARM meeting but the resident had declined the landlord’s offer on 5 August 2021.
8. The landlord provided a link to the local authority’s website about housing options for the resident’s daughter.
On 31 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she was willing to accept the landlord’s goodwill gesture of £100.
On 1 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to report racial abuse from the neighbour whose partner had reportedly racially abused the resident in May 2021. The resident stated that the neighbour had scratched graffiti on her car and shouted racially abusive terms. The landlord’s records indicate that an offensive note had also been posted through the resident’s letterbox and the neighbour had driven her car into the back of the resident’s property. Following these reported incidents, the landlord visited the resident at home on 3 December 2021 and discussed the potential of a management move. However, the landlord’s notes state that the resident declined the offer of a transfer. During the home visit, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord and therefore the landlord agreed to raise a new complaint. The resident felt that she had not been listened to in relation to the allegations of ASB and felt that CCTV cameras should have been installed at her property.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord fitted a fireproof letterbox to the front door of the property and on 9 December 2021 the landlord fitted two temporary CCTV cameras to the property.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord submitted an information request to the police requesting information about the action taken by the police in relation to the reported racial abuse and damage to property by the resident’s neighbour. The police confirmed that the neighbour had been charged with a racially aggravated public order offence and that a court order was in place prohibiting the neighbour from contacting the resident and from knocking on any other doors in the block.
On 16 December 2021, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman to report that she had been living in fear since 2019 and that the landlord should have installed CCTV in 2019.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to request an extension of time to reply to the resident’s stage one complaint. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 20 December 2021, in which it included the following points:
1. At the time of the incident (in 2019), the evidence suggested that it was a one-off incident which was unlikely to re-occur and there was no evidence that the presence of CCTV would have acted as a deterrent in relation to the latest incident.
2. During the landlord’s home visit on 3 December 2021, the landlord had discussed the potential for a management move but the resident did not wish to pursue this option.
3. The resident’s complaint that the correct action had not been taken historically was dealt with in the landlord’s stage two reply of 20 August 2021 and could not be revisited.
4. The landlord had now installed temporary CCTV to offer the resident reassurance and to see if further evidence could be captured. One of the cameras overlooked the car park and the other covered the front of the house.
On 20 December 2021, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two as she believed the landlord was incorrect not to uphold her complaint given that she had been racially abused three times near her property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two request on 10 January 2022 and confirmed that the stage two review would be carried out by a complaints panel.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord served a Notice of Seeking Possession (NSP) on the resident’s neighbour for damaging the resident’s car and scratching a racially abusive term on the car. The notice was sent by first class post as the neighbour had been away from her home and therefore the landlord had not been able to serve it in person. At the time of serving the notice, the landlord was awaiting the outcome of the court hearing as the neighbour had been charged by the police.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 January 2022 to confirm that the stage two complaint panel meeting had been arranged to take place on 7 February 2022. The landlord stated that the panel would be comprised of a chair, two independent panel members (one of whom was also a resident) and two of the landlord’s senior staff, including its Head of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. The landlord provided the resident with information on how she could join the virtual meeting.
On 8 February 2022, the resident’s mother phoned the landlord to report that her daughter had received an inappropriate phone call from one of the landlord’s staff on 7 February 2022 outside of normal working hours.
The landlord phoned the resident’s mother on the same day (8 February 2022) to apologise for the reported inappropriate phone call. The landlord confirmed that it would follow the appropriate channels in relation to dealing with matters concerning staff conduct. An internal email sent by the landlord confirmed that the matter had been referred to its Human Resources (HR) team to investigate and that the staff member would be asked immediately “to step back from the business”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2022 with its stage two reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The complaints panel had considered the resident’s stage two complaint and the resident had attended the meeting.
2. The panel had decided not to uphold the resident’s complaint.
3. In the summer of 2021, the resident had reported being threatened by the same person who had assaulted her in 2019. The landlord had advised the resident to report the matter to the police as it was a criminal matter. However, the resident had chosen not to approach the police because she felt she had no proof.
4. In relation to the incidents in December 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had issued warnings to the resident’s neighbour and was working with its legal team to explore additional action in relation to the neighbour’s tenancy.
5. In August 2021, the resident had been asked whether she wanted the landlord to arrange a MARM meeting but she felt this was unnecessary at the time.
6. The landlord had explored the option of a management move, however, there had been no supporting evidence available to support this. Therefore, the landlord offered support from its tenancy sustainment team to assist the resident in looking into alternative housing.
7. The landlord had considered the resident’s requests for CCTV after the incidents in 2019 and May 2021 and based on risk assessments had decided not to install CCTV. In May 2021, there was a lack of evidence and the resident did not want to report the matter to the police.
8. Due to the severity of the incident in December 2021 and because the alleged perpetrator (i.e. the resident’s neighbour) had not been held on remand, the landlord had decided to install temporary CCTV.
9. The landlord was continuing to pursue tenancy enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour.
10. The landlord had implemented a hate crime policy in May 2021 and enhancements had been made to its ASB processes, such as reminding teams of the importance of note taking and sharing action plans with resident’s.
11. The resident should advise the landlord in the future if she wanted a MARM meeting to be set up to ensure agencies were working together to achieve the best outcomes for the resident.
12. The landlord said it was currently conducting a full investigation with the support of its HR team into the out of hours phone call that had been made to the resident by one of its staff. In the meantime, the landlord had put measures in place to ensure that the staff member would not be dealing with the resident’s ASB case.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord visited the resident at home to deliver the stage two complaint reply and to also discuss the out of hours phone call that the resident had received from one of the landlord’s staff. The landlord confirmed it was investigating the matter, but was unlikely to be able to share the outcome of the investigation with the resident because of its duty to protect the confidentiality of staffing matters.
On 18 February 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to report that the fence between her property and the neighbour had blown down during the recent storm. The resident was worried that the neighbour could now easily access her property.
On 19 February 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to report that her car had been scratched again and that she had informed the police.
The landlord visited the resident on 21 February 2022 to discuss the damage to her car. The landlord confirmed that it would ask the CCTV company to review the CCTV video footage. The landlord agreed to replace the temporary CCTV cameras with a video doorbell as it would allow the resident to receive notifications via her phone and allow her to review the recording herself.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord raised an order to repair the fencing. The landlord’s notes indicate that it was dealing with several fencing jobs at the time due to the storm damage.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2022 to confirm the discussions during its home visit to the resident on 15 February 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 February 2022 to confirm that the video footage had been reviewed by the CCTV company and the company had advised the landlord that the damage to the resident’s car had been caused by a delivery van.
On 3 March 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to make a complaint that her car had been damaged on 2 March 2022 (she stated that the doors had been scratched and the wing mirror had been tampered with). The resident said that the incident had been reported to the police. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for the CCTV footage to be reviewed.
The landlord sent a stage one reply to the resident on 16 March 2022 stating that it had reviewed the footage from the CCTV camera and found that the images were distorted due to the glare from the security light and therefore it was unclear who had been responsible for the damage to the resident’s car. The resident had informed the landlord that it would cost £200 to repair the car and the landlord agreed to cover this cost as a goodwill gesture and to recognise the impact of the incident on the resident. The landlord confirmed that since the incident, it had provided the resident with a video doorbell to monitor activity around her property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2022 to ask for her complaint to be escalated because she felt that the landlord was taking too long to process the £200 payment. On 21 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2022 to complain that her car had again been scratched, allegedly by her neighbour, and that the video doorbell had not captured the incident due to the limited specifications of the model. The resident had reported the incident to the police.
The landlord’s records show that during March 2022, there were various email exchanges between the landlord and the police, during which the landlord was advised that the neighbour was on remand.
The landlord sent a stage one reply to the resident on 1 April 2022 regarding the scratched car and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord stated that it was not financially responsible for the actions of others and that the resident should submit a claim to her car insurers. The landlord acknowledged that it had recently offered the resident £200 for a separate incident involving damage to her car, but this had been by way of an apology to recognise the poor quality of the night vision on the CCTV cameras. However, the CCTV had now been removed and replaced with a video doorbell which contained a better quality camera.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (1 April 2022) and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 4 April 2022.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply regarding the length of time it had taken to process the £200 payment agreed in its stage one reply of 16 March 2022. The landlord upheld the complaint and undertook to improve communications between teams requesting payments for resident’s and the team responsible for processing the payments.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply regarding the scratched car. In its reply, the landlord repeated that the resident should claim for the damage through her car insurance. The landlord also stated that the resident should report incidents of criminal damage to the police and that if she believed the landlord to be financially responsibility for the damage, she could submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurers.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord wrote to this Service to confirm that the resident’s neighbour had been on remand since 21 March 2022 and therefore there had been no further incidents involving the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it was awaiting a court hearing for the neighbour.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, on 24 June 2022 the landlord sent a revised stage two reply regarding the resident’s complaint that her car had been scratched. The landlord acknowledged that its original decision had been incorrect and that it should have agreed to reimburse the resident the £150 she had requested to repair the scratches on her car. The landlord therefore offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £250 (£150 to repair the car and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s original decision).
During August and September 2022, the resident contacted this Service on various occasions to report the following:
1. She was required to attend court as a witness on 29 September 2022.
2. Her car had been broken into and eggs were thrown at the car.
3. The resident was unhappy with the quality of recordings on the video doorbell and believed that CCTV cameras should be fitted in the close.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord wrote to all resident’s in the vicinity of the property seeking views on whether CCTV should be installed. However, the landlord concluded that there was insufficient support from resident’s to justify the installation of CCTV.
On 8 August 2023, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman to report that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the phone call she had received outside of working hours from one of the landlord’s staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to this Service on 16 December 2021 and referred to an assault that she reported had taken place in 2019. The resident stated that the landlord should have installed CCTV after this incident. The Ombudsman encourages resident’s to raise complaints with their landlord’s in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, as the formal complaint about racial harassment was made on 2 July 2021 and the complaint about the lack of CCTV was made on 3 December 2021, the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation is from 2021 onwards. Some of the earlier information has, however, been included in this report as contextual background.
The resident has advised this Service that the incidents, such as the call from a member of the landlord’s staff, have caused her to suffer from PTSD and that the matters raised in her complaint to the Ombudsman have affected her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that such issues are more appropriately addressed by the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident complained that the landlord’s processes had discriminated against her on the basis of her race. While the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by landlord, this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in relation to the landlord’s processes or actions. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. This is in line with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as mentioned above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial harassment

In June 2021, the landlord published a hate crime policy, which states that a ‘hate incident’ may relate to a situation where hate is present in someone’s behaviour or actions, but no crime is committed or any incident which the victim thinks is based on someone’s hate because of the victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment. The policy goes on to say that the landlord will support any customer or member of their family experiencing a hate crime or hate incident and take robust action against perpetrators.
The landlord’s ASB and Harassment procedure sets out the action the landlord will take when responding to incidents of ASB, harassment and serious criminal activity. The procedure includes the following points:
1. The landlord will aim to make contact with the person reporting ASB within one working day of the case being logged.
2. A vulnerability risk assessment will be completed in all ASB cases.
3. There are various circumstances in which the landlord may close an ASB case, one of which is if there is insufficient evidence to take action and the landlord has advised the resident of this.
4. The landlord will contact the resident who has reported ASB on a “regular basis” as agreed between the landlord and the resident.
5. The landlord may consider a management move in relation to ASB cases.
6. The landlord will contact the alleged perpetrator to discuss the allegations made against them.
7. The landlord can gather evidence using different methods, including evidence from the police or local authority.
The landlord’s management transfer procedure states: “in exceptional circumstances there may be cases where a move is necessary on the grounds of safety due to a serious risk of harm”.
The resident advised the landlord on 26 May 2021 that she had been racially abused by her neighbour’s partner, who the resident stated had mouthed a racist term to her. The resident also reported that items had been stolen from her car, her back gate had been damaged and her son was being racially abused by other children in the area. The landlord had agreed with the resident that it would contact the neighbour, which it did on the same day (26 May 2021) and then on 1 June 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of racial abuse by immediately contacting the neighbour to discuss the incident as this was in line with its policy. The landlord established that the neighbour’s partner did not live with her and therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to approach the neighbour, who was a tenant of the landlord, as she was responsible under the tenancy agreement for the behaviour of her visitors.
The landlord followed up the initial contact with the resident by interviewing her on 28 May 2021. The interview was used by the landlord to produce an action plan and to complete a vulnerability assessment form. This was appropriate as the landlord’s ASB and Harassment procedure states that it will complete an action plan and vulnerability assessment in all cases. It was also appropriate that the landlord had discussed the option of temporary accommodation as a safety precaution while it was investigating the reported incidents.
The resident had confirmed to the landlord that she did not intend to report the incidents to the police as a there had been no witnesses. While the resident was entitled to choose not to approach the police, not doing so meant that the police had not investigated the alleged criminal damage and racist incident, which limited the landlord’s ability to gather evidence. Nevertheless, the landlord submitted an information request to the police in order to check whether the police had any relevant information regarding the neighbour’s partner. This was reasonable as it demonstrated that the landlord wanted to work with the police in relation to the reported incidents as per its policy.
The landlord accepted in its stage one response dated 23 July 2021 that it had not adequately kept in contact with the resident regarding the reported incidents. It had spoken to the resident on 28 May 2021 and there had been no further contact with the resident about the incidents, which prompted the resident’s mother to ring on 30 June 2021. The next contact was on 7 July 2021 when the landlord wrote to the resident to close the case. The landlord’s ASB and Harassment procedure states that the landlord will maintain “regular” contact with the person reporting ASB and although the word regular is not defined in the procedure, this Service would have expected a greater level of contact from the landlord following the conversation with the resident on 28 May 2021. The lack of contact was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord and it was right that the landlord had fed this back to the relevant team and apologised in its stage two letter of 20 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2021 to confirm that it was closing the ASB case as there was insufficient evidence. This was reasonable as the landlord had investigated the incidents by contacting the neighbour and the police and had not been able to identify sufficient evidence for it to take further action. The landlord acted appropriately in following its procedure for closing ASB cases by writing to the resident with the reason for the case closure.
Given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it was right that the landlord took follow-up action after the case closure, particularly in relation to contacting support agencies; for example, writing to the local authority, the school attended by the resident’s son and the CMHT. It was also right that the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team contacted the resident to offer tenancy support. Finally, the landlord had offered to facilitate setting up a MARM meeting to work with other agencies to ensure that adequate support was available to the resident, but the resident had declined this offer.
On 1 December 2021, the resident reported racial abuse from her neighbour, who the resident said had also caused damage to her car and property. The landlord visited the resident at home on 3 December 2021. At the meeting, the landlord had discussed the potential for a management move, but the resident had declined this option. Given the seriousness of the incidents reported on 1 December 2021, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a home visit and to discuss the option of a management transfer as this was in line with its ASB and Harassment procedure. It was also appropriate that the landlord took ‘target hardening’ measures to safeguard the resident by fitting a fireproof letterbox and installing two temporary CCTV cameras. Such measures help to protect victims of harassment, provide reassurance to victims and can deter perpetrators.
The landlord submitted an information request to the police on 10 December 2021, which was appropriate given that the incidents were criminal matters and the landlord was aware that the resident had reported the incidents to the police.
The landlord served a NSP on the resident’s neighbour on 17 January 2022 for her racially abusive behaviour, including scratching an offensive term on the resident’s car. The service of the NSP was reasonable and proportionate given that the neighbour had been formally charged by the police for a racially aggravated public order offence and therefore there was evidence she had potentially breached the terms of her tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed in its stage two reply on 10 February 2022 that it was working with its legal team to explore additional action in relation to the neighbour’s tenancy. This was appropriate as it had served the NSP, which is the first formal step in the process for seeking possession of a social housing property.
On 19 February 2022, the resident phoned the landlord to report that her car had once again been scratched. The landlord visited the resident at home on 21 February 2022 to obtain further details, which was in line with its procedure and therefore appropriate as part of its investigation into the incident. During the visit the landlord agreed that it would ask the CCTV company to review the CCTV video footage, which was a reasonable next step to help identify the perpetrator. The landlord agreed that it would replace the CCTV cameras with a video doorbell, which would allow the resident to review the video footage herself. This was again reasonable as it would empower the resident to monitor and review the video footage herself. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 February 2022 to confirm that the CCTV footage had been reviewed and the damage to her car had been caused by a delivery van. It was appropriate that the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her of the outcome of its investigations in order to provide closure for the resident.
The resident phoned the landlord on 3 March 2022 to report that her car had been scratched and the wing mirror tempered with. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for the CCTV footage to be reviewed, which again was reasonable for the landlord to do as part of its investigation into the incident. The landlord advise the resident on 16 March 2022 that the identity of the perpetrator could not be established from the CCTV footage because the images were distorted by the glare from the security light. Given that the landlord had supplied the CCTV cameras, which had produced distorted images, it was right that the landlord offered to cover the cost of the repairs to the resident’s car. Also, it was reasonable that the landlord had now replaced the CCTV cameras with alternative monitoring/recording equipment in the form of the video doorbell given that there was some doubt about the quality of the images from the CCTV cameras.
On 23 March 2022, the resident reported that her car had once again been scratched and she believed that her neighbour had been responsible. The resident said that the images captured by the video doorbell had not been of sufficient quality to identify the perpetrator. Although the landlord initially refused to pay for the damage to the resident’s car in its stage one and stage two letters, the landlord later reviewed this decision and accepted that the decision had been incorrect. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2022 with a revised stage two reply and offered her £150 to repair the car plus £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s original decision. Given that the landlord had supplied the video doorbell and the quality of the images had not been adequate, it was right for the landlord to cover the cost of the car repairs and it was appropriate to offer redress of £100 to put right its original decision. The landlord’s Putting Things Right guidance states that up to £100 can be offered as an acknowledgement of the landlord’s apology where verbal apology is not considered sufficient and therefore the offer was appropriate.
The landlord’s records show that during March 2022, the landlord kept in close contact with the police regarding the neighbour. This was appropriate as the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 guidance emphasises the importance of close working between social landlord’s and agencies such as the police and local authorities. In this case, the landlord was aware that the police had charged the neighbour and were awaiting a court hearing.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination in its handling of racial harassment

On 23 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that in her view the landlord’s processes were discriminatory, particularly in relation to the landlord’s decision to close her ASB case. The landlord responded on 20 August 2021 in its stage two reply and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated that each of its policies and procedures had undergone an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), including its ASB and Harassment procedure. The EIA is an important tool for checking that a policy, procedure or process is fair and does not disadvantage anyone based on the nine protected characteristics, one of which is race. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that its ASB and Harassment procedure had been through the EIA process.
In terms of the landlord’s actions to close the ASB case, as stated earlier the Ombudsman’s findings are that the landlord acted in accordance with its procedures. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the closure of the ASB case had not been discriminatory.
The landlord stated that it had reviewed the action taken in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB and had found no evidence of discrimination against her. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to investigate any complaint about discrimination thoroughly, including investigating any specific examples presented by the resident and looking more widely at its actions in relation to the processes in question. The landlord would then be expected to advise the resident of the outcome of its investigations. In this case, the resident had cited the closure of her ASB case as an example of discrimination, which the landlord had addressed, and it had reviewed its overall handling of the ASB case. Finally, the landlord had reported its conclusions to the resident in a timely manner. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s complaint about discrimination were reasonable because it had investigated the specific concern cited by the resident, looked at its overall handling of the ASB case and had then advised the resident of the outcome.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed in the area

The Government’s guidance on the use of domestic CCTV was updated in August 2019. The guidance was summarised on its website (www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/) and more detailed guidance was provided in the Home Office’s publication called ‘Surveillance Camera Code of Practice’. One of the principles within the code of practice was that surveillance cameras operating in public places must always have a clearly defined purpose in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be necessary to address a pressing need, such as public safety or the prevention of disorder or crime.
The landlord’s ‘Use of CCTV Systems Procedure’ states that prior to any system being installed, the landlord will ensure that a CCTV privacy impact assessment is carried out, which should consider consultation with those who the CCTV will cover.
The resident requested the installation of CCTV cameras after the reported theft of belongings from her car in June 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 July 2020 and outlined some of the barriers involved in installing CCTV, such as the cost and having suitable arrangements in place for monitoring/reviewing the footage. Although based on the evidence seen, the resident did not reply to this email, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s email was unclear about whether it intended to look into the feasibility of installing CCTV. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen any information to show that the landlord sent any follow-up to the email. It was therefore a shortcoming that the landlord did not make its intention clear about whether it would investigate the feasibility of installing CCTV.
In December 2021, following her report of racial abuse from her neighbour and damage to her car, the resident advised the landlord that in her view CCTV should have been installed when she had reported earlier incidents. The landlord explained in its stage one reply on 20 December 2021 that it had not installed CCTV in 2019 because the incident had been viewed by the landlord as a one-off incident, which it felt was unlikely to re-occur. The landlord also stated that it had no evidence that the presence of CCTV would have acted as a deterrent.
Under the guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), a landlord must assess whether it is appropriate to install CCTV on the basis that it will address a pressing need, such as public safety issues or the prevention of crime. In this case, the landlord had concluded that the installation of CCTV in 2019 had not been appropriate for the reasons given in its complaint response. The landlord’s response was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable because it set out the reasons it had not installed CCTV and those reasons were broadly consistent with the ICO’s guidelines, i.e. the landlord believed that the events in 2019 had been a one-off incident (rather than being indicative of wider public safety or crime problems).
In its stage two reply on 10 February 2022, the landlord referred to the incidents in 2019 and in May 2021 and explained that it had carried out risk assessments in both cases and, based on the results, had chosen not to install CCTV. The use of risk assessments to decide whether to install CCTV was in the Ombudsman’s view reasonable because they would enable the landlord to assess whether the area was experiencing any particular problems that would justify installing CCTV.
As an alternative to installing CCTV in the close, in December 2021 the landlord chose to install temporary CCTV cameras to monitor the area in the immediate vicinity of the resident’s property. The landlord stated in its stage two reply of 10 February 2022 that it had taken this decision because of the severity of the incident in December 2021 and because the resident’s neighbour had not been held on remand. The installation of temporary CCTV cameras was a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord because the temporary cameras would enable the area in front of the resident’s property and the car park to be monitored without impacting significantly on the privacy of other residents in the close. The wider deployment of CCTV would have required consultation with all of the affected residents and therefore would not have allowed the landlord to respond with the necessary urgency.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the close on 9 March 2023 to seek their views on whether CCTV should be installed. The landlord has advised this Service that, based on the questionnaires returned, there was insufficient support to justify installing CCTV. It was appropriate for the landlord to consult with residents about the possible installation of CCTV this was in line with its Use of CCTV Systems procedure. Having carried out the consultation, the landlord correctly took account of the results in reaching its decision.

The landlord’s handling of reported repairs to the resident’s windows

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that emergency repairs are made safe within 24-hours and non-emergency repairs are handled through an appointment-based system.
On 26 February 2021, the resident reported that the glass in two windows at the front of the house had been smashed. The landlord boarded up the windows on the same day. This was appropriate as the landlord had an obligation to make the windows safe within 24 hours as per its policy.
The resident phoned the landlord on 6 April 2021 to ask when the windows would be reglazed. The landlord raised in order and the reglazing was completed on 17 May 2021. It had therefore taken 80 days to reglaze the windows, which was inappropriate as the Ombudsman would have expected such a job to take in the region of 28 days. Also, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not recorded the need for follow-on repairs on its system after boarding up the windows. The Ombudsman has noted that the reglazing of windows is not automatically carried out by the landlord without satisfying itself first that the resident has not been at fault. However, the checking process should have occurred much sooner and should not have required the resident to chase the landlord. It was therefore right for the landlord in its stage one reply on 23 July 2021 to acknowledge there had been a delay in reglazing the windows, apologise, provide feedback to the relevant team and to offer the resident compensation to put things right.
The landlord’s offer of £100 (for the delay in reglazing and its failure to return the resident’s calls) is considered by this Service to be proportionate and reasonable as it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which states that up to £100 is appropriate for service failures involving delays in getting matters resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of one of its staff

The landlord’s customer relations procedure explains that where complaints are about the conduct of its staff, the investigation will be carried out with the support of its HR team. The procedure goes on to explain that the landlord will not be able to share the findings of the investigation with the resident, but will offer the resident reassurance on the depth of its investigation and confidence in the outcome of the investigation.
On 7 February 2022, the resident received a phone call outside normal business hours from one of the landlord’s staff. The resident’s mother notified the landlord of the call on 8 February 2022 and advised the landlord that the call had been inappropriate. The landlord phoned the resident’s mother on the same day to apologise and to confirmed that it would investigate the matter in line with its staff conduct arrangements. The landlord also confirmed that the staff member had been asked to “step back from the business”, which meant she would have no further contact with the resident. The landlord therefore took prompt and appropriate action to apologise, advise the resident that it would investigate the incident and it took steps to ensure the staff member had no further contact with the resident. The landlord confirmed these actions in its stage two reply of 10 February 2022.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 15 February 2022 to hand-deliver the stage two reply and to confirm it was investigating the out of hours phone call from its staff member (with the support of its HR team). The landlord advised the resident that it was unlikely to be able to share the outcome of the investigation with the resident due to confidentiality. The information provided by the landlord was appropriate as its customer relations procedure states that it will investigate complaints about staff conduct with the support of its HR team and will not be able to share the findings of the investigation with the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord responds to stage one complaints within 10 working days. Where this is not possible, the landlord may take up to a further 10 working days and will contact the resident to explain the delay. The landlord responds to stage two complaints within 20 working days. Its customer relations procedure sets out two options for complaints to be reviewed at stage two: the complaint can either be reviewed by a customer complaints panel or it can be reviewed by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
The landlord’s Putting Things Right guidance states: “a gesture of goodwill payment shall be considered based on the impact the service failure had on the customer”. The guidance sets out suitable sums that may be offered by the landlord depending on the impact of the service failure.
The resident’s mother complained about delays in repairs on 2 July 2021 and the landlord sent it stage one reply on 23 July 2021, which was 15 working days after receiving the complaint. Therefore, the landlord took longer than its published timescale of 10 working days, but the delay was not excessive and it therefore replied within a reasonable timescale.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate the complaint on 23 July 2021 and the landlord sent it stage two reply on 20 August 2021, which was 20 working days after receiving the escalation request. Therefore, the landlord replied within the appropriate timescale of 20 working days.
The resident made a further complaint on 3 December 2021 during a home visit by the landlord. The landlord sent it stage one reply on 20 December 2021, which took longer than its 10 working day target, but the landlord had been in touch with the resident on 17 December 2021 to request an extension of time and therefore the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 December 2021 and opted for the complaint to be reviewed by a complaints panel. The panel met on 7 February 2022 and the landlord replied to the stage two complaint on 10 February 2022 (the reply was hand-delivered during a home visit on 15 February 2022). The landlord therefore took 41 working days to reply to the stage two complaint, which was outside its target of 20 working days. However, during the intervening period the landlord had contacted the resident on 21 January 2022 to confirm the date of the panel meeting and the panel meeting had taken place on 7 February 2022. The resident had therefore been kept informed about the progress of her complaint and therefore the overall time taken by the landlord to respond was reasonable.
The resident phoned the landlord on 3 March 2022 to make a new complaint and the landlord replied within an appropriate timescale on 16 March 2022. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 March 2022 because she felt the landlord had taken too long to process the £200 payment she had been offered. The landlord sent its stage two reply on 8 April 2022 and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore took 15 working days to reply to the resident’s stage two complaint, which was an appropriate timescale.
On 23 March 2022, the resident submitted a new complaint, which the landlord responded to within an appropriate timescale on 1 April 2022. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 April 2022 and the landlord sent it stage two reply on 5 May 2022. The landlord therefore took 22 days to reply, which was slightly longer than its published target, but the landlord replied within a reasonable timescale.

Determination (decision)

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 racial harassment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of discrimination in its handling of racial harassment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for CCTV to be installed in the area.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of reported repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of one of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of ASB/harassment and damage to her car in May 2021, December 2021, February 2022 and March 2022 by interviewing both the resident and the neighbour. The landlord worked closely with the police, took enforcement action against the neighbour, provided support to the resident by working with other agencies, installed temporary CCTV cameras, a fireproof letterbox and later a video doorbell. Also, the landlord assisted the resident by helping with the costs of repairing her car.
The landlord reviewed the closure of the ASB case and its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB/harassment and fed back its findings to the resident. In the absence of any specific evidence of discrimination, the landlord concluded that its processes had not discriminated against the resident on the basis of her race. The landlord was able to reassure the resident that it’s ASB and Harassment procedure had been through an EIA process.
The landlord had carried out risk assessments to assess whether it was appropriate to install CCTV and had concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the installation of cameras in the close. However, following the incident in December 2021, the landlord installed temporary CCTV cameras at the resident’s property and later changed these for a video doorbell. The landlord later carried out a consultation exercise among residents in the close and found there was insufficient support for installing CCTV.
The landlord boarded up the resident’s windows within the appropriate timescale but did not follow this up with an order to reglaze the windows. As a result, there was a delay in reglazing the windows. The landlord apologised for the delay, provided feedback to the relevant team to improve services and offered the resident appropriate financial redress to put things right.
The landlord acted promptly to contact the resident about the incident, apologised to the resident, investigated the matter and arranged for the staff member not to have further contact with the resident. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations by informing her that it would not be able to advise her of the outcome of its investigation.
The landlord received various complaints from the resident and generally kept to its timescales for replying to the complaints. The Ombudsman particularly welcomes the landlord’s approach of using a complaints panel at stage two of the process, which includes independent panel members and gives the resident who has complained the opportunity to attend the panel meeting.