Hyde Housing Association Limited (202016195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016195

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 March 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of racist hate crime.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s reports of racist hate crimes relate to her former property for which the tenancy ended on 4 May 2020, the same day as the tenancy commenced for her new property.
Between January and May 2019, the resident reported incidents of hate crime to the landlord including:
1. Poison being put through her letterbox.
2. Dried rice poured outside her front door three times and more poison posted through the door.
3. Her son being approached by a neighbour upstairs asking him to ‘do a run for me. ‘The family believed that this was a reference to a drug run and perceive all of these comments as racist. A number of parcels were sent to the family home with another resident’s name’’.
4. An associate of a neighbour used racially offensive language when talking about the resident.
5. The family’s dog ingested another batch of poison and died.
6. A neighbour telling her, after she had collected a parcel from her that ‘knowing you lot it’s a bomb or something,’ and that ‘this is a quiet neighbourhood, we don’t like your sort.’
Whilst these matters have been noted to provide context, the Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time, of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s contact with her Tenancy Officer on 5 June 2019, the same period considered by the landlord in its complaint response and approximately a year prior to the landlord logging a formal complaint.
It is noted that the resident had contacted the landlord on 31 January 2020 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports. However, even if the landlord had logged this as a formal complaint, it would still be reasonable and in accordance with both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Scheme for the landlord to only consider matters back to June 2019, six months earlier. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s email of 31 January 2020 as a formal complaint has been considered separately in this report.

Summary of events

On 5 June 2019 the resident emailed her Tenancy Officer (TO) to say that the situation with her neighbours was becoming unbearable. She had opened her front door to a half-eaten potato on her front mat, and what looked like cabbage and potatoes thrown outside her door, her neighbour was using her address for his post and just going to her post box to collect it. The resident also referred to ‘‘the graffiti outside’’.
On 6 June 2019, the TO emailed the ASB team raising concerns about the issues raised by the resident. The TO said that they believed the resident had an idea of which neighbour was responsible, but this could not be proven, and that they had encouraged the resident to contact the Police. The TO also referred to a ‘‘very sensitive case’’ they current had open with the resident which they would be happy to discuss if a case was opened by the ASB team.
On 7 June 2019, an ASB case was opened, the landlord wrote to the resident following, its discussion with the resident that day. The letter confirmed that the resident’s case would be assigned to a local ASB officer who would make contact with the resident by the agreed Case Review Date. The attached ASB report noted that:
1. The resident said that the racist abuse, harassment, and intimidation had been going on for the previous six weeks and had occurred since her letterbox had been sealed up when her dog was poisoned and following the landlord installing safety alarms due to domestic violence. That vegetables, other items and the previous day dried rice, were thrown over her front door mat which she nearly slipped on. That when she met one of her male neighbours, around the time the letterbox and alarm were installed, another man with the neighbour used racially offensive language when referring to her.
2. The resident said she had called the police six weeks ago and was still waiting for the Police to contact her. The resident provided Police Crime reference numbers for the poisoning of her dog and for an incident when a neighbour told her that a parcel she had accepted for them may have been a bomb. The resident explained that she was extremely low and had no contact with family or friends as she and her son were moved out of the area where they lived previously due to domestic violence.
3. That it would liaise with the Police and confirmed the next case review date as being 14 June 2019.

The landlord also completed a Risk Assessment Matrix, recording the risk as High. The Risk Assessment assessed noted that the resident believed the behaviour was targeted, that there were personal circumstances that increased the risk to her or her son, that their health had been affected by the behaviour but that there were no other factors that should be taken into account.

On 25 June 2019, a Housing Advisor from the local authority’s resident services advised the landlord that the resident had reported feeling unsafe in her current accommodation.
On 28 June 2019, the ASB officer wrote to the resident to advise that the resident’s ASB case had been referred to them. Confirmed that the ASB related to racist graffiti outside the resident’s door and said that they would like to visit the resident to discuss this and to find out if she had had any feedback from the Police. It was suggested the meeting take place on 8 July 2019.
This service has had sight of an internal email dated 28 August 2019, provided by the resident’s advocate, which notes that this was a complex case that had been recorded as being Category A, Hate Crime. The email says it was difficult to obtain evidence of what had happened and who may be responsible, it was believed that the resident wanted to move and wanted the landlord to facilitate this. The email also made personal comments about the resident’s mental health and being hard to engage with. The email went on to acknowledge that the resident had experienced abuse both as a child and more recently.
On 3 September 2019, the ASB Officer wrote to the resident advising that as the resident was unable to say who she thought might be responsible, and given that the landlord had no further evidence as to the identity of the perpetrator, it could not take any further action and would be closing the case.
On 9 December 2019, the resident’s son reported ‘‘racial words engraved on (their) front door’’ and that this had happened before to their old front door but had got worse as they had now engraved the words. The resident’s son said that that they did not feel safe and were scared to live in their block. They also confirmed that they had reported the incident to the Police and provided a Police incident number. The resident’s son said that whilst they were not happy for the landlord to disclose their identity to the person responsible they were nevertheless happy for the landlord to contact any alleged perpetrator.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident, further to their conversation of the same day. The landlord said that the case would be assigned to a local ASB officer who would contact the resident by the agreed ASB Case review date. The landlord also completed a Risk Assessment Matrix, recording the risk as Medium. The Risk Assessment assessed noted that the resident’s son believed the behaviour to be targeted, that there were no personal circumstances that increased the risk to the resident or her son, that neither of their health had been affected by the behaviour and that there were no other factors that should be taken into account.
On 12 December 2019, the ASB Officer wrote to the resident proposing a meeting with resident and her son on 6 January 2020 and saying that in the meantime they would be following up with the Police.
On 23 December 2019, the resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The advocate advised that the resident had informed them of racist incidents at her home which had begun shortly after she moved into the property in October 2018, and that between June and November 2019:
1. The contents of a bag of rubbish had been tipped outside the family’s front door.
2. Racially offensive words were spelt in dust outside the family home.
3. Rice was spilled outside the family’s front door.
4. Curry was spilled outside the family’s front door it took several weeks before the landlord cleaned it up.
5. Dog faeces was put through the letterbox.
6. The front doorbell will keep ringing and she could overhear conversation outside the front door, typically between 12:00-04:00 am.
7. A racially offensive word was painted on the front door, which the advocate said they understood took the landlord two months to remove.
8. Multiple racially offensive words were then scratched into the family front door and almost a month later the words still remained on the door.
The advocate said that:
1. It was their understanding that all of these incidents had been reported to the landlord, that the resident had requested CCTV be installed but had been told this was not possible and that she had also been told that the landlord could do nothing to address the incidents unless it knew who the perpetrator was.
2. The resident did not have support networks, friends or family nearby and that the landlord was aware that both the resident and her son had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which the advocate said the racist conditions they had experienced had exacerbated to the point at which they take it in turns sleeping so that one of them can keep watch and the resident’s son is reluctant to leave his mother in the flat alone.
3. They, the advocate, were going to refer the case to the local Hate Crime Case Panel for their meeting on 7 January 2020 and also to Adult Safeguarding.
4. They understood that the landlord would be visiting the resident at her home on 6 January 2020 and that the resident had asked that they also attend.
On 24 December 2019, the landlord was contacted by the local authority Safeguarding Adults team asking to speak to someone about a report they had received from the resident’s advocate that the resident had been subject to racist hate crimes.
The meeting took place as agreed at the resident’s home on 6 January 2020 following which on 7 February 2020, the resident’s ASB Officer wrote to:
1. The local authority Safeguarding Adults Team, to advise that the resident was ‘‘in an extremely bad place at the moment as the alleged racist graffiti on her door and food being thrown continued’’. That during a meeting with the resident and her advocate the previous day, the resident ‘‘again made a statement indicative that she is thinking of taking her own life’’.
2. The resident’s advocate, confirming that the issue of the graffiti on the front door had been raised with property services with a view to either removal or replacement of the door, that it may be able to provide a mobile CCTV unit, depending on whether it was feasible and that they had updated the safeguarding team. The landlord also advised that a mutual exchange was not possible due to rent arrears, that a management transfer related to other matters had been applied for but not accepted, and that to put forward an application for an Urgent Move it would need a risk assessment from the Police stating that the resident was at high risk. The landlord asked that the advocate provide it with an update following their upcoming meeting with the Police.
The local authority Safeguarding Adults Team responded the same day advising that the matter was being presented to its Hate Crime Panel that afternoon. That they had explained that any safeguarding issues would be the responsibility of the NHS Mental Health teams who it recommended the landlord contact for an update on what actions the Mental Health team were taking to safeguard the resident against the hate crime she was experiencing.
On 8 January 2020:
1. The landlord contacted the resident to see if the graffiti on the front door had been removed. The resident responded the same day to confirm that it had.
2. NHS Mental Health team contacted the landlord, having been copied into the local authority Safeguarding Adults Team’s email of 7 January 2020. In their email they said that in their opinion, the resident’s safety in regards to the hate crimes she was experiencing needed to be addressed urgently.
On 31 January 2020, the ASB officer contacted the resident’s advocate as the ASB case was due for review that day. The resident’s advocate responded the same day to advise that:
1. They were sourcing a ring video doorbell for the resident.
2. The racist graffiti had been removed but that on 29 January 2020 the family’s home had been attacked again, white paint having been smeared outside their front door, and that this was the third attack since 28 December 2019. The advocate said that the use of white paint was symbolic and had been used to threaten and humiliate Black people for decades. The advocate said that this most recent incident had been reported to the police with the request for a door knock and that they would inform the landlord of the outcome.
3. The resident had asked that the landlord write to residents in her block reminding them of their obligations under their tenancies, that the landlord carry out a door knock if possible, and meet with her as soon as possible to discuss her concerns further.
On 31 January 2020, the resident also emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handing her reports. The resident asked the landlord what they were doing to help her, that it had a duty to support her and her son but had not done so. The resident said that it was ‘‘totally inhumane and degrading for a person to have to see the hate from people towards them’’, that they were ‘‘petrified’’ about what would happen next, were scared to open their front door and the landlord would not do anything about it.
On 4 February 2020, the resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord advising that the resident had spoken to the Police Safer Neighbourhood team following the most recent incident involving white paint. The advocate confirmed that they were still waiting for the Police to contact them and for a risk assessment to be provided by the Police, and that once this had been received the advocate would be submitting the papers for an urgent move.
Between 4 and 5 February 2020, the landlord liaised with the resident’s advocate, the NHS Mental Health team and the Police seeking to arrange for all parties to attend a multi-agency meeting.
In an internal landlord’s email of 8 February 2020, the ASB officer confirmed that the Tenancy Sustainment Advisor had taken photos outside of the resident’s flat the previous evening and there did not appear to be anywhere it could site the CCTV.
On 12 February 2020, the ASB officer emailed the resident’s advocate and the NHS Mental Health team to confirm that the multi-agency meeting would take place on 27 February 2020. The ASB officer also chased the Police the same day as they had not responded regarding their attendance at the proposed meeting. The Police confirmed their attendance the same day.
On 19 February 2020, the ASB officer emailed the resident to confirm that her application for an urgent move had been accepted and processed, confirming that the resident was registered for a 2 bedroom property, that her application would be reviewed at six weeks, three months and six months and that should a suitable property become available it would consider the applicant on the list that had been registered for the longest period of time.
On 28 February 2020, the ASB officer circulated minutes from the multi-agency meeting the previous day, 27 February 2020. The minutes noted that:
1. The meeting was attended by the resident, her son, her advocate, the Mental Health team and the ASB officer, the Police did not attend.
2. The resident and her son were in temporary accommodation.
3. Dual Housing Benefit had been claimed so that the rent on both the resident’s property and her temporary accommodation could be paid.
4. Confirmation was awaited from the local authority so that this could be forwarded to the Urgent Moves panel, that it needed to be stressed to the local authority that it would not be safe for the resident to return to her property and that no guarantee could be made as to how long it would be before a permanent move was offered but the ASB officer would work with the local authority.
5. A ring/video doorbell had been installed and since its installation there had been no serious events.
6. A block letter had been issued and that whilst there had been lots of replies nothing untoward had been reported affecting the resident’s property.
7. The resident had suspicions about who the perpetrators might be but did not want them approached until they had been given permanent accommodation.
8. Police had not been able to resolve any of the racist graffiti incidents.
On 2 March 2020, the ASB officer contacted the local authority regarding the resident’s temporary accommodation, advising them that the resident had been put on the landlord’s urgent moves list and that once the local authority had confirm that it had sourced temporary accommodation this could be put to the urgent moves panel to try and boost her priority.
On 9 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she and her son had decided to return to their property and stay there. They had had support from the mental health team and now had a panic alarm as well as the ring/video doorbell.
On 26 March 2020, the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord to advise that the previous Thursday the resident’s son had received ‘‘dirty stares’’ from a neighbour and that the following day he noticed that his car had been damaged. The ASB officer responded the following day to say that a visit to the neighbour had had to be cancelled and that they were unsure when it would be re-arranged but that the resident should keep reporting any incidents.
On 15 April 2020, the ASB officer emailed the resident’s advocate, in response to their request for an update, to advise that whilst no moves were currently taking place due to the current lockdown the resident was still in line for a void that had come up and that it would not be offered to anyone else.
On 16 April 2020, the ASB officer emailed its contractor, following a report from the resident’s advocate of racist graffiti in the lift at the resident’s flats, asking how soon it could be removed.
The resident moved into a new property on 4 May 2020 and on 5 May 2020, the ASB officer wrote to the resident, noting that she had now moved and advising that her ASB case would be closed. On 7 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to express her concern that her case had been closed stating that it still needed to be addressed especially for the sake of new tenants.
On 21 May 2020, the resident’s advocate logged a formal complaint with the landlord on her behalf. The resident was ‘‘deeply dissatisfied’’ with the way the landlord had managed her complaints of racist hate crimes and the level of support it had offered her during that time, saying that:
1. Racist graffiti took two months to be cleared up following the resident’s report.
2. Her reports were not responded to before she sought external advocacy, ASB complaints had been closed before investigating and that she was unaware of any case reviews and did not receive any feedback regarding her case.
3. There was no evidence that any of the reported incidents had been investigated by the landlord.
4. She was told she could not install CCTV and was advised by the landlord that it only had one mobile CCTV unit for the borough. The resident was unsure how this could be considered effective support.
5. During a meeting at her home on 6 January 2020, she was accused of causing the graffiti herself because she wanted a move. She had made three requests for a letter to be sent to neighbours warning them of the consequences of ASB before a letter was sent.
6. There was a delay in a case conference being held, which did not take place until 27 February 2020, 16 months after the resident’s initial reports and almost three months after her advocate’s initial letter.
7. The landlord was aware of her and her son’s damaging history and diagnoses of PTSD but did not factor this into their support or consider how the experiences of hate crime could exacerbate their conditions.
8. She was not moved until 19 months after her initial report and that her advocate, and not her landlord, had to make the request for the urgent move.
9. That she was ‘‘shaken’’ when she was told by the ASB officer on 7 May 2020 that the case would be closed and that she was not asked, which she found callous and uncaring.
The landlord issued its Stage One response on 3 August 2020 in which it acknowledged that it had failed to offer reasonable assistance to the resident and that it had failed to progress the issues reported to it by her. The landlord:
1. Said that it was sorry it had let the resident down.
2. Said that it would be carrying out an awareness session to frontline staff regarding the process for arranging removal of offensive graffiti and ensuring this is followed up urgently to confirm works have been completed, and that this training would be delivered to its Customer Services, Anti-Social Behaviour, Property Manager and Complaints teams.
3. Said that training would be undertaken with key internal stakeholders to remind them about the importance of keeping notes and comments ‘factual’ when managing and recording cases.
4. Offered the resident a total of £550 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £400 for its acknowledged service failures
  2. £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £50 for the delay in assisting her.
  4. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
On 16 September 2020 the resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord to request a review of its Stage One response, explaining that the main reason for requesting a review was that the landlord had failed to acknowledge structural faults and the need for it to adopt a specific hate crime policy. The advocate agreed that communication was poor, however the most detrimental fault was that the complaints were not investigated. The landlord had placed the emphasis on the victim to collect and produce evidence before an investigation could take place, instead of an investigation in order to produce evidence. The advocate also said that:
1. The landlord had failed to investigate the resident’s complaints regarding the misconduct of its staff.
2. The landlord’s training for staff around the removal of racist graffiti was welcomed but that there should also have been training around hate crime.
3. There was no references in the response to the Stage 1 complaint to the poisoning of the family’s pet; requests to deliver packages; other people’s parcels being delivered to the family home ; the food and white paint spilt outside the front door or smeared onto it, or any other hate crime /incident the resident had reported.
4. The second case was closed because the landlord had been unable to identify anyone responsible, the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbours and yet the neighbours were not approached, and there was no evidence that the resident did not want the case investigated.
5. The block letter should have been sent in the early stages, in line with the preventative position of the landlord’s ASB policy.
6. The response overlooked that there were serious concerns about the resident and her son’s wellbeing and vulnerability and an acknowledgement that they were experiencing hate crime several months before the urgent move was initiated.
7. As early as 25 June 2019 the landlord had received correspondence with met the criteria for an urgent move however, this was also overlooked by the response to the stage 1 complaint.
8. The Stage 1 complaint took a considerable amount of time to answer and confidentiality was not maintained, the complaint having been reviewed by Heads of Service and passed through three sets of hands within the complaints team. The eleven weeks taken to reply to the complaint was unreasonable and unfair for a resident suffering with PTSD to wait.
9. The resident did not accept the offer of compensation, because it was an inadequate reflection of her experiences, the impact on her and her son, and the structural faults identified within her complaint.
On 2 December 2020, the landlord issued its Stage two and final response in which it acknowledged and apologised that it had let the resident and her son down by its handling of her reports of hate crimes, the complaints process and its poor communication. The landlord said that it had changed its position following its Stage one response and that the failings identified and acknowledged in that response should have been enough to prompt a review of how it dealt with hate crime. The landlord said that these failings included:
1. Lack of adherence to its policy on removal of racist graffiti.
2. Poor case reviews and case management.
3. Lack of communication with the resident.
4. That the investigation was not thorough and the resident had had to request that block letters be sent.
5. It had made no referral to specialist support agencies dealing with hate crimes.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about its approach to safeguarding and urgent moves being flawed, the landlord acknowledged that a report to the urgent move panel could have been made more quickly if a more thorough investigation had been carried out and a referral made to Hate Crime Intervention Services sooner. But it did not feel the policy required review, noting that ‘‘the reality is even when case are awarded an urgent moves priority, a move can take some time’’.
With regards to confidentiality, the landlord said that it found no evidence of information being shared outside the organisation and that there was no breach in confidentiality.
With regards to the conduct of its staff, the landlord said that:
1. It was distressed to hear that the resident felt bullied by its staff, the member of staff who had written the email on 28 August 2019, which it acknowledged was ‘‘clearly inappropriate’’ had left the organisation and that it had spoken to its TO who had said that it was never their intention to bully or harass the resident.
2. It had reviewed its TO’s notes on the case and her agreed actions were to ensure there was support available in relation to mental health concerns and refer an adaptation request to colleagues. Both of these actions were carried out.
3. The staff handling of this case had highlighted the need for further training around dealing with residents with a history of abuse and with mental health issues, and that it would be looking to initiate further training on this as of April 2021.
With regards to its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that there were severe delays in its response to the resident’s complaints at both Stage one and Stage two, which it agreed were unacceptable. The landlord said that it was currently reviewing the way complaints are handled to ensure a quicker response and that a self-assessment and plan for improvement would be carried out in December 2020.
To resolve the complaint, the landlord said that:
1. It would develop a separate Hate Crimes Procedure to provide specific guidance for staff, and support for victims of hate crime, which it said it would aim to have produced in early 2021.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s offer to assist in its review and confirmed that it would also be consulting with other partner agencies and its resident’s panel.
3. Following the launch of the procedure it would follow up with a publicity campaign on its website and with training for its staff and contractors.
4. In the interim it confirmed that the lessons learnt from its Stage one response had been shared with individuals in the ASB team in September 2020 and that these would be emphasised again to the team and contract managers in December 2020.
5. It would review its approach to complaints and provide training for staff.
6. It had reviewed the level of compensation offered to reflect the distress caused to both the resident and her son to the maximum award under its policy. The landlord offered the resident £1,050 made up as follows:
  1. £500 for the delay and distress
  2. £500 for the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  3. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will:
1. Aim to deal with ASB in a proportionate and appropriate manner. Its approach will include engaging with complainants and alleged perpetrators, providing support and/or taking enforcement action.
2. Take a customer focussed approach to tackling ASB, working with the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, aiming to reach agreed actions, timescales and ultimately closure. Except in very serious cases, initial intervention will aim to stop the problem behaviour and recognises that early intervention is important to stop cases escalating.
3. Work with partner agencies to tackle the causes and effects of ASB, using a consistent and clear approach. Where necessary, we will use a multi- agency approach in dealing with ASB by sharing knowledge and expertise, including feedback to assess the effectiveness of the interventions used.
Both the landlord’s Complaints Policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about a service provided. The landlord’s Complaints policy also stated that it may not consider a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over 6 months prior to the complaint being made.
The landlord’s has a two stage complaints policy which states that it will aim to provide its responses at both Stage One and Stage two within 20 working days. The policy also states that the customer must be kept informed and updated on the progress of their complaint until the matter is resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of racist hate crimes.

In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Following the resident’s report on 5 June 2019, within two days the landlord had spoken to the resident and an ASB form and Risk Assessment had been completed. The risk assessment recording the risk as high.
There is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to investigate the resident’s reports or to offer the resident support or to signpost to other organisations such as those specialising in Hate Crime at that time. The ASB form completed on 7 June 2019 also noted that the landlord was to liaise with the Police but there is no evidence that it did so.
At the time the resident made her report in June 2019, the landlord was already aware that the resident had been previously subject to ASB and so it would be reasonable to expect that when responding to this new report it would not only consider the incident reported at that time but also whether the accumulation of events might necessitate a much more rigorous intervention. The landlord also had a ‘‘very sensitive case’’ open for the resident with regards to a different matter, which should also have flagged the need for a much more joined up, victim focussed approach. The TO that reported the ASB to the ASB team on 6 June 2019 did invite them to discuss this, however, there is no evidence of this taking place at that time.
There was then no further contact from the ASB team until 28 June 2019, more than three weeks after her report on 5 June 2019. At this point the ASB officer suggested a meeting with the resident on 8 July 2019. Whilst this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, given that the risk assessment carried out on 7 June 2019 had recorded that the risk was high, and given the history of hate crime the resident had reported, this was far too long for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to visit her to discuss her concerns. There is also no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to remove the reported graffiti at that point.
The landlord closed the case on 3 September 2019 explaining that as it had no further evidence it could take no further action. Whilst it is not unreasonable for a landlord to close a case where there is no evidence, it is not reasonable for the landlord to solely rely on the victim to identify the perpetrator for it to take any further action. There is no evidence of any investigation being carried out by the landlord, there was no letter sent to the block asking if anyone had witnessed any of the incidents nor did the landlord explore at that time whether there might be some steps it could take to monitor the situation such as CCTV. In fact, there is no evidence that the landlord considered either of these steps until February 2020 some eight months after the resident’s initial reports and following further reports of hate crime on 9 December 2019 and 31 January 2020, at which point the landlord did issue letters to the block and consider the feasibility of CCTV. Unfortunately, the block letters did not result in any information pertinent to the resident’s case and the CCTV was not feasible.
Following the resident’s son’s report of further graffiti to their front door on 9 December 2019, this time the words being engraved into the door, the landlord completed the ASB report and risk assessment the following day and within three days of the report had written to the resident proposing a meeting with her and her son on 6 January 2020.
The meeting took place on 6 January 2020 and the following day, the landlord contacted the local Safeguarding Adults Team due to concerns about comments made by the resident at the meeting. The landlord also updated the resident’s advocate with regards to the graffiti, potential installation of CCTV and what would be needed for an urgent move application. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take and were carried out in timely manner.
The resident confirmed on 8 January 2020 that the graffiti had been removed. However, this was a month after it had been reported.
Through February 2020 there is evidence of the landlord working with not only the resident’s advocate but also the Police and the NHS Mental Health team to seek to progress the resident’s case. This culminated in a meeting of all parties, with the exception of the Police, on 27 February 2020. At this point, some eight months after the resident’s report of June 2019, the resident and her son were in temporary accommodation, placed by the local authority.
Following the meeting there is evidence of the landlord contacting the local authority on 2 March 2020 regarding the temporary accommodation and the resident having been put on the landlord’s urgent move list. A week later the resident advised the landlord that she had moved back into the property.
It was then a further two months before the resident was rehoused on 4 May 2020, 11 months after her report in June 2019, during which time two further incidents were reported to the landlord by the resident’s advocate on 26 March and 16 April 2020.
Whilst it is appreciated that it can take some time for a suitable property to become available, it is evident that the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its policies and procedures resulted in missed opportunities for it to take more robust action and at a much earlier stage not only with regards to investigating and addressing the hate crime reported and but also with regards to support for the resident and putting the resident forward for an urgent move, all of which contributed to the significant upset and distress experienced by the resident and her son.
These are all serious failures, which were acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses, in which the landlord also apologised to the resident, acknowledging that they had let the resident and her son down.
With regards to the ASB officers email of on 28 August 2019. Given the serious concerns raised about both the content and tone of that email it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an investigation, which it did. As the author of the email had left the organisation there was no steps to take regarding the member of staff, nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the content of that email was clearly inappropriate.
In order to put things right, in addition to its apology the landlord also offered the resident a total of £1,000 compensation, £500 for the delay and distress and £500 for the inconvenience she experienced.
The Landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy statement makes no reference to the level of compensation it might offer. However, this amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order in recognition of significant maladministration when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the resident, including physical or emotional impact, or both. Given the level of upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her son by the landlord’s failure to take reasonable and timely action with regards to her reports of hate crime, over a period of 11 months, the level of compensation it offered was proportionate.
In addition to putting things right, the Ombudsman expects landlords to look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
As a result of the resident’s complaint, the landlord recognised training needs both with regards to how its staff dealt with residents with a history of abuse and with mental health issues, the process for arranging removal of offensive graffiti and in relation to its findings from the complaint which it said it had shared with individuals in its ASB team in September 2020.
Given the extent of the failings in this case, it was important for the landlord to look beyond the training of its staff in line with its current policies to see what other actions in might take in order to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future. Key to this was the landlord’s commitment to develop a specific hate crime policy. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take not only to ensure that it identifies and responds much more appropriately, consistently and effectively to reports of hate crimes going forward, but also to provide residents with reassurance that when they make such reports they will be taken seriously and are empowered with regards to what they should expect from the landlord including what action the landlord will take and when, what support it could offer and what steps it could take with regards to partnership working and signposting.
Whilst there were indeed serious failings by the landlord in this case, I am satisfied that the landlord’s acknowledgement of those failures and the distress caused to the resident as a result, its apology, its offer of £1,000 compensation, its recognition that further training was needed for its staff and its commitment to develop of Hate Crimes Procedure, provided the resident with reasonable redress to her complaint.
When offering a remedy, the Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion within a reasonable time period. Given the significance of the failures of the landlord in this case, this was particularly relevant in relation to its commitment to develop a Hate Crimes Procedure, which it said it would aim to have produced in early 2021.
It is therefore of concern that on 1 September 2021 the landlord advised this service that the Hate Crime Procedure was still being developed by the ASB team leader, some nine months after the commitment it made in its final response of 9 December 2020. The landlord was also asked to provide an update on its Hate Crime Procedure on 15 March 2022 but has failed to do so.
In light of this, and whilst the landlord’s offer of redress was both reasonable and proportionate, a finding of service failure has been made on the basis that the landlord failed to followed through with its commitment with regards to the Hate Crime Procedure within a reasonable time period. As a result, the landlord has been ordered to provide the resident, her advocate and this service with an action plan and timescale for finalising its Hate Crime Procedure and to pay the resident a further £250 for its failure to do what it had agreed to do in its final response within a reasonable time period.

The Complaint handling.

The resident first emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling her report of racist hate crime on 31 January 2020
In accordance with both the landlord’s Complaints Policy, the landlord was expected to log the resident’s email of 31 January 2020 as a formal complaint and have responded to that complaint within the 20 working days timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord failed to do so, thus missing the opportunity to review how it had been handling her reports at a much earlier date and, given the failures it acknowledged in its later complaint responses, at a time when the resident was still residing at the property.
Following the resident’s advocate’s complaint of 21 May 2020, the landlord acted appropriately, logging a formal complaint, however, it failed to provide a response until 3 August 2020, some 52 working days after the complaint was made and significantly later than the 20 working days set out in its complaints policy. There is also no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident ‘‘informed and updated’’ during this time.
The landlord then again failed to comply with the timescales laid down in its complaints procedure in respect of its Stage two response. The advocate having contacted the landlord on 16 September 2020 and the landlord not providing its response until 2 December 2020, some 33 working days later.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that there were severe delays in its response to the resident’s complaints at both Stage one and Stage two, which it agreed were unacceptable. The landlord also said that it was currently reviewing the way complaints are handled to ensure complainants get a quicker response and that a self-assessment and plan for improvement would be carried out in December 2020. These was all reasonable steps for the landlord to take and evidenced that it intended to take steps to learn from the outcome and to improve its service going forward.
In its final response the landlord also offered the resident £50 for her time and trouble. The landlord was not explicit in this being awarded for the time and trouble spent pursuing her complaint however, as the landlord’s compensation policy refers to ‘‘time and trouble’’ in relation to the customers making complaints, it would seem reasonable to assume that the £50 offered was for its complaint handling failures.
Given the significant level of the delays in the landlord providing responses to the resident’s complaints. I am not satisfied that the £50 offered by the landlord provides the resident with sufficient redress for those failures. As a result, a determination of service failure has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £250. The landlord has also been ordered to provide both the resident and this service with an update on the self-assessment and plan for improvement it said it would be carrying out in December 2020.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of racist hate crimes.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for its shortcomings and offered appropriate compensation. The landlord also recognised learning from the complaint and what steps it needed to take in order to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future, including the development of a race hate policy. Whilst the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate, a finding of service failure has been made on the basis that the landlord failed to follow through with its commitment with regards to the hate crime procedure within a reasonable time period.
There were significant level delays in the landlord providing responses to the resident’s complaints for which the compensation offered was neither reasonable nor proportionate to its acknowledged failures.

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident the £1000 for the delay, distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, offered in its final response. If it has not done so already.
2. Pay the resident an additional £250 for its failure to follow through with its commitment with regards to the Hate Crime Procedure within a reasonable time period.
3. To provide the resident, her advocate and this service with an action plan and timescale for finalising its Hate Crime Procedure.
4. Pay the resident a total of £250 for its complaint handling failures made up of the £50 it offered in its final response, if it has not done so already, plus an additional £200.
5. Confirm to this service that it has complied with all of the above orders.