Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012781

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. antisocial behaviour.
2. alleged discriminatory staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged discriminatory staff conduct, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has advised that she felt that she was racially discriminated against by the landlord’s staff when dealing with her ASB complaint. The Ombudsman is not in a position to make a binding decision with regards to whether the resident’s claims are substantiated or not. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
The law protects against individuals being unjustly or prejudicially treated because of different characteristics and as such determining such actions which amount to discrimination, is better suited for the courts. This is as the Ombudsman is unable to make a legally binding decision on such matters. In order to pursue this aspect of the complaint, the Ombudsman advises that the resident seek independent legal advice or alternatively, speak with the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding her concerns and how best to proceed with this matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord living in a two-bedroom flat.
The landlord’s ASB policy refers to a number of definitions of ‘antisocial behaviour’. This includes the definition contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’). The Act defines ASB as follows:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person and
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
3. Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlords ASB policy further states in the Specific Standards 5.1.
1. ‘We will categorise ASB complaints as follows:
  1. Crime (category 1) – we will work with the police on a collaborative basis to tackle criminal activity in our neighbourhoods; we will take action to enforce tenancy conditions and refer victims to relevant support agencies, while the Police investigate the criminal behaviour and bring charges against the perpetrator. We will not generally lead on resolving such incidents, but in some serious cases if it is appropriate to do so, we will explore our options for taking our own legal action such as an ex parte injunction.
  2. Noise (category 2) – we will investigate cases within 5 working days when our threshold is met. We will initially encourage customers to try and resolve noise nuisance from neighbours between themselves and advise customer to report excessive noise to their local council’s environmental health team. We will try to work with the local environmental health service that have statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance and serve abatement notices on those responsible for the noise.
The landlord’s policy states ASB Thresholds for noise and other ASB are:
1. three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
2. five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
The landlord’s ASB policy statement advises:
1. It will explain to residents that it is their responsibility to try and resolve disagreements and neighbour disputes by talking to each other and reach a solution based upon mutual understanding. Where resolution is not possible, it may suggest mediation where it believes it could assist in resolving a situation.
The Tenancy Agreement section 4.2 regarding Managing and Enforcing Tenancy conditions states:
1. Where a resident fails to engage with the landlord staff about the problem or fails to address the tenancy breach, it will decide on appropriate action to try and enforce the tenancy conditions. This will include one or more of the following.
  1. Suspend a transfer application until the breach is remedied.
  2. Issue a warning – warnings will escalate from a verbal to written and final written warning.
  3. Withdrawing permission, for example to keep a pet or run a business from home where it is causing nuisance to other residents or damaging landlord’s property.
The landlords Complaint Procedure states it will aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days for stage one complaints and 20 working days for stage 2/peer review complaints.
The Service has been provided with photographs of dog fouling and photos showing where the resident’s front door is situated, away from her neighbour’s CCTV doorbell.

Summary

On 6 November 2020 the resident raised a report about her neighbour allowing her dog to foul outside of the resident’s front door, excessive barking, and loud music. The landlord advised this was re-classified as a general enquiry.
On 18 November 2020 the resident sent photos to the landlord showing her neighbour’s partner with a dog. She followed this up with an email stating she had made numerous complaints to the landlord regarding dog fouling outside of her property. The resident advised that she did not understand why a stranger would let their dog foul up to her front door or under her front window. She noted following previously speaking with her neighbour’s partner to question the fouling it stopped for four weeks, however when she went away, she came back to find a lot of dog faeces outside of her property. The resident felt that this was racially motivated. The landlord sent a letter to all residents requesting they clean up after their dogs.
The resident questioned why it took five weeks for the landlord to issue the letter and questioned why the neighbour had a dog contrary to the Tenancy Agreement. The resident also expressed concerns that her neighbour was breeding dogs from the property and putting their rubbish in other people’s bins and reiterated that the noise from the dog barking was disturbing her and her child from sleeping.
The landlord visited the resident on 26 November 2020 to discuss the resident’s concerns. The landlord followed this up by delivering diary sheets for the resident to record the ongoing issues.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about dog fouling outside her property. It confirmed the resident first raised this issue in July 2020, and a case was opened on 12 August however this was closed due to not meeting the threshold. Further cases about dog fouling were raised on 17 August 2020, 15 September 2020 and 9 November 2020 but were all subsequently closed as they did not meet the threshold. It explained the resident’s Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) attended her property on 26 November 2020 and the situation was explained regarding the dog fouling and the barking which the resident felt was racially motivated. It noted the fouling had stopped following a visit from the police on 7 November 2020 however that was when the barking started. The landlord advised the NRO had contacted the resident again on 10 December 2020 to check whether she was still experiencing issues and a detailed interview and action plan was completed. As the dog fouling had stopped in November 2020, unless it started again, the landlord explained, it was unable to take any action. The landlord agreed on actions with the resident which included: liaising with the police, speaking to other neighbours including the neighbour in question, advice to contact Environmental Health regarding the noise, completing incident logs, and for the resident to send over evidence of the dog barking.
On 19 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord following an incident in which her neighbour was verbally abusive and forced entry into her property, injuring her child. The resident advised that the neighbour was upset because the resident had made reports about her dog. The police were called, and her neighbour was arrested. The landlord arranged an initial interview and action plan with the resident. The resident advised she felt unsafe in her own home.
The resident called the NHS following her daughter being hit by the door resulting in a concussion and noted her daughter was not eating. The NHS advised the resident to monitor the situation for the next couple of days.
The police advised the resident that the neighbour had denied everything and as there was no CCTV evidence it explained it was unable to take the matter further.
On 21 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about the incident which occurred on 19 December 2020. It explained following the police investigation, there was insufficient evidence against her neighbour. It explained that the police collected the CCTV evidence from her neighbour’s doorbell and stated that it was clear there was a verbal altercation that took place however they were unable to identify any racial element during the confrontation. The police were unable to see the physical altercation on the video recording. The police also carried out a door-to-door enquiry however there were no independent witnesses. The landlord explained it had followed its policy and procedure and given that there was no evidence, it was unable to take any enforcement action at that time. The landlord confirmed the resident was not eligible for additional priority under the management transfer process, but that she could apply for a mutual exchange or make a direct application to the council’s waiting list.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord noted on its system that the resident’s neighbour sent it a video which showed the resident shouting at them from the window.
The landlord noted on 17 January 2021, it was sent a video from the neighbour showing the resident throwing dog faeces and stones towards the neighbour’s car.
The landlord noted on 20 January 2021 that a recording was provided from the neighbour that alleged the resident was banging on the walls for long periods of time and playing loud music.
The landlord issued the resident with a final warning on 1 February 2021. It referenced the January incidents and noted this was a breach of her tenancy conditions and this was her final warning. It noted if this continued, she would lose her home. It advised should it receive any further complaints or information about continued anti-social behaviour, it would pursue legal action without any further warning.
The resident responded to the final warning relating to noise advising she had been installing new curtain rails in her property. The resident stated she was being discriminated against as when her neighbour was doing work to her property she did not complain. The resident advised that she had been raising concerns about her neighbour and nothing had been done by the landlord and she had video evidence showing her neighbour putting rubbish in other resident’s bins.
The landlord’s records of 9 February 2021 indicate the resident sent documents from her doctor and council supporting a move. The landlord arranged a review of this information to confirm if its position remained the same about the move.
On 12 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord as she had previously requested access to her information regarding the logs of complaints made. She explained that she was attempting to get an injunction against her neighbour for the protection of her and her child relating to the attack, dog fouling and nuisance. She noted following a conversation with the Tenancy Specialist who advised that the neighbour had informed it the case was dismissed, it would not be providing the information requested and would need a letter from the judge requesting this. The resident queried this information as she had a hearing date and a trial set in the following weeks. She stated she was aware her neighbour had been provided with letters from the landlord to support her in court. She explained she had to present the information requested by 16 February 2021 and if she was denied access to her information, she would contact the Information Commissioners Office. She expressed her concerns about how she was being treated by the Tenancy Specialist.
On 15 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord expressing concerns after learning that the landlord was assisting her neighbour in a managed move. The resident felt that the landlord was supporting the move based on the resident’s own ASB concerns regarding racially motivated anti-social behaviour, and this was prejudicial given the landlord declined to progress her own tenancy management application. The resident advised that the judge in the injunction application was therefore confused as to the reason why the case was brought to court by the resident. The resident reiterated to the landlord that her neighbour had breached more than one section of the Tenancy Agreement and it had not followed its own management and enforcement of the Tenancy Agreement, as the neighbour had received no warnings.
The resident advised that the Tenancy Specialist dismissed her concerns about the dog fouling and wanted to only focus on her noise complaints. She was concerned that the Tenancy Specialist also suggested that her child was not actually hurt during the altercation with the neighbour and during a telephone conversation the Tenancy Specialist had grunted and laughed which she felt showed bias. The resident queried whether the Tenancy Specialist was related to her neighbour due to the way she was handling the matter as there was no equal treatment, the completed diary sheets had not been requested and therefore this showed she was being discriminated against.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 February 2021. It confirmed it investigated the resident’s complaint about excessive dog barking and the incident which occurred on 17 December 2020. It confirmed there was insufficient evidence for both issues for it to take further action. The landlord confirmed that the warning letter issued was appropriate, and that its staff did follow the correct procedure. It advised it could not find any evidence of its staff being threatening or intimidating. The landlord confirmed that it had listened to all the resident’s recordings, however, could not find any evidence of the dog barking issue. It confirmed it had arranged for her information request to be provided within 10 working days, in time for her court proceedings against her neighbour.
On 23 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord expressing concerns about the stage one response. She advised her first two complaint points had not been covered in the response. The resident advised that her neighbour had breached the Tenancy Agreement and both the judge and solicitor had pointed this out. The resident went on to reiterate the neighbour’s breaches and requested her complaint be escalated.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 February 2021 to confirm that all issues raised in the original complaint had been investigated and that it would now seek an independent review from a third-party organisation and the process would take approximately two weeks.
On 25 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord noting it had not responded to the concerns she raised about the dogs being kept contrary to the tenancy agreement. She raised concerns about the name of the neighbour detailed in the landlord’s communication to her as this was not the name of the neighbour in question.
The landlord confirmed that the neighbours name detailed in its communication was in fact the previous tenant at the neighbour’s property, an error on its part and it reported this to its data breach team.
As the landlord had not responded to the resident’s escalation request as per its previous email, this Service contacted the landlord on 14 March 2021 to request a response be provided.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord responded to this Service to advise it had opened a stage 2 complaint and would be in touch with the resident to establish the outstanding concerns. This was confirmed with the resident on 18 March 2021, with a response noted as being due in 20 working days.
On 29 March 2021 the landlord’s notes advise that following a visit to the resident, notes were made in a notebook but were not transferred to the electronic system, however an email overview was sent to the complaints team. It also noted that it was still awaiting a response from the police.
Also, on 29 March 2021 the independent review commissioned by the landlord was completed by a third-party organisation specialising in ASB cases. Within the review, the third party noted instances in which the landlord could have done more to gain clarity from the police about the cases it had investigated relating to ASB. It noted that there was insufficient evidence relating to the resident’s racial allegation against her neighbour and the landlord, however, that the final warning issued to the resident was disproportionate to the ASB allegations against the resident.
The landlord issued its second response on 1 April 2021. The response focused in great detail on the resident’s racial allegations and discrimination by the landlord, and it explained that there was no evidence of any misconduct. The landlord explained there was insufficient evidence to show that the resident’s neighbour was in breach of the tenancy agreement and insufficient evidence to support her allegations of ASB from her neighbour. The landlord suggested that the dog barking the resident was complaining about was coming from a different property although this was not conclusive. It advised that the resident’s reports of dog faeces being left outside her door and the dog barking would be reclassified as a ‘general enquiry’ in line with its nationally adopted way of working, albeit not written within the current policy.
The landlord explained that it identified the resident within the video of the allegations of 17 January 2021 based on secondary data it held about the resident on file (from the sign-up form it held). The landlord advised it closed the resident’s case regarding the incident which took place in December 2020 as the police investigation through her neighbours CCTV doorbell disproved the allegation. It advised that this called into question the integrity of the resident’s report.
The landlord also explained that it was justified in issuing the final warning due to the fact that it had firm evidence on file to prove more than one incident which constituted a breach of tenancy. It acknowledged that following advice from a third party, it concluded that a written warning would have been more appropriate than a final warning and apologised to the resident. It advised that the content of the letter would have remained the same and therefore the final warning would not be retracted. The landlord stated it would provide feedback to the Tenancy Specialist Manager going forward about more suitable wording in any future letters.
The landlord advised going forward, it would monitor the case for 4 weeks to see if the resident had any further reports. If no reports were recorded, the case would be closed, and it would let the resident know. It would also liaise with her neighbour and the police so that any allegations against the resident’s conduct were recorded and investigated. If evidence proved a breach of the tenancy agreement, it would consider if legal action was required against the resident.
The landlord explained if it received further allegations about its staff that were disproven or not substantiated, it would review whether legal action would be required that could lead to the resident losing her home.
The landlord advised it had no grounds to move either party, however it would provide further information to the resident if she wished to access housing options such as mutual exchange. It advised that breaches of tenancy may be reported to any other landlord which could lead to it deciding to decline her application on grounds of previous conduct. The landlord explained this was a decision for the other landlord, should it request references.
The landlord confirmed it would allocate a new Tenancy Specialist to work with the resident as she was unhappy with her interactions with the current member of staff.
On 4 April 2021 the police wrote to the resident to advise that it received allegations of her throwing items over her neighbour’s car causing damage on 17 January 2021. It explained that after reviewing the incident and the evidence available, the decision was made that there was a lack of evidence, and no further action would be taken. The police advised that the case may be reopened if future incidents occurred.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the residents ASB complaint.

When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB exists as alleged. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord acted in line with its duties, obligations and procedure as set out in any relevant policies.
With regards to the dog fouling, based on the landlord’s ASB policy this would not be classed as ASB unless there was evidence that it was being done maliciously. I do note that in this instance, the resident felt these actions were being done maliciously as they were occurring right outside her front door and under her front window. Records show the police were also involved in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, as it was considered a potential hate crime as the resident raised concerns that it was racially motivated. Therefore, the landlord should have seriously considered the matter before deciding it was a general enquiry.
Whilst the landlord closed the resident’s cases regarding the dog fouling as it did not consider the issue met it’s ASB threshold, it is unclear whether it offered the resident support regarding the relevant department to look into the matter.
It is also noted that the landlord indicated it would speak to the police regarding the dog nuisance as the resident had raised this as a racial issues and the police were looking into it the incidents as the resident felt it was racially motivated. The police visited the neighbour with regards to the matter however there is no evidence to show that the landlord followed this up with the police to find out what had been decided about the case.
Evidence indicates that the resident was provided with diary sheets to detail her reports of noise nuisance and incidents of ASB. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the landlord considered the information detailed in the diary sheets with regards to the residents ASB concerns and considered how best to manage the case going forward. I appreciate a visit was made to the neighbour about the noise nuisance and the dog fouling reports and all allegations were denied. Although the ASB policy does not detail what specific investigations the landlord would do to establish noise nuisance other than speaking with other residents, the landlord could have considered options such as noise recording equipment to establish how loud and frequent the dog barking was.
In the final response the landlord advised that the problems regarding the neighbour’s dog were not considered ASB issues as it had changed the way that it dealt with such issues, deviating from what was detailed within its policy. Given the dog fouling was continuously in the front of the resident’s property, it is unclear why this would be considered a general enquiry as opposed to intentional. The landlord has not provided any evidence which is reasonable to conclude the possibility that dogs could foul accidently in front of the resident’s property, especially given that there is a driveway which needs to be accessed before reaching the resident’s door. It is also unreasonable that the resident’s noise reports about the dog barking were not considered an ASB issue given that noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy, was affecting the resident and giving her cause for concern. The landlord’s ASB policy advises of noise nuisance that it does not consider to be ASB however, dog barking is not detailed as an exclusion. The resident also raised reports of the dog barking on more than one occasion, and as per the ASB policy, it appears the threshold for investigating the reports was met.
When the neighbour raised a complaint about the animal faeces and stones being thrown at their driveway near their car and the noise complaint against the resident, the landlord did not duly and fairly apply its policy. The ASB policy states that noise complaints would only be considered once the threshold is reached of three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days. The neighbour provided one recording of the banging and loud music from one day. The ASB policy also states warnings will escalate from a verbal to written and final written warning. There is no evidence that that landlord discussed the ASB concerns raised by the neighbour with the resident. It issued the resident with a written final notice, however there were no other notices prior to that therefore this was an unreasonable action by the landlord and disproportionate as the threshold, by way of its own policy had not been met, nor was the resident given the opportunity to either curtail the behaviour (if there was any constituting a nuisance), explain the reasons for the noise or respond to the allegations made.
When the resident raised the report about the altercation which took place on 19 December 2020, the landlord did follow its policy by liaising with the police about the incident as it was considered a crime. It is reasonable that the landlord relied on the police investigation with regards to handling the ASB report. The Ombudsman notes that the police acknowledged that a verbal altercation did take place, however it could not find evidence of any racial abuse and it could not see whether there was a physical altercation.
The landlord advised that it received evidence of the resident throwing items towards the neighbour’s car however, the police dismissed the case as there was insufficient evidence. Therefore, no further action was taken against the resident by the police. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should have been working with the police and this is the approach it had taken with the other reports of the ASB concerns raised by both parties. As the police closed the case due to insufficient information, it is unclear why the landlord confirmed it had received proof of the offence, given the police noted the perpetrator was not clearly identified from the CCTV. This further indicates that the final warning issued was unreasonable and disproportionate, as there are inconsistencies between the landlord’s investigation and the police’s investigation. Furthermore, the landlord did not take the same stance when considering the resident’s reports and against the neighbour. While the Ombudsman cannot determine discrimination, this action by the landlord was clearly unjust and amounted to maladministration.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was unreasonable for the landlord to call into question the integrity of the resident’s report from the incident of 19 December 2020 within its final response. The Police did confirm that there was a verbal altercation, although it could not see what had happened at the resident’s door, given the neighbour’s CCTV did not capture what was occurring at the resident’s front door. The resident also provided evidence that she reported the incident to 111 regarding her child being hurt. As such it was unreasonable for the landlord to suggest that an incident may not have taken place, albeit there was insufficient evidence to show what actually happened.
It is unclear why there was no warning sent to neighbour despite police confirming that there was a verbal altercation in line with the reasons that the resident received the final warning. If the landlord was unable to establish who was at fault at the time of the incident, it would have been reasonable to send a written warning to both tenants about their actions and arrange a mediation at this time to try and resolve the neighbour dispute. Furthermore, evidence on file notes the landlord was aware of an ongoing dispute between the neighbours, and yet it still failed to attempt to resolve matters by offering mediation as an initial approach, considering the different ASB allegations that both the tenants had made against each other, in line with its policy. Rather, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord unfairly applied its policy against the resident, amounting to maladministration.

Complaint Handling

In the first response, whilst most of the issues were addressed, the resident’s concerns about the dog fouling were not fully addressed. The landlord also confirmed that its staff followed the correct procedure regarding ASB in line with its policy with respect to issuing a final warning, however this was not the case.
Evidence provided to the Service indicates that the resident’s neighbour had permission keep a dog, however there is nothing showing that this was confirmed to the resident despite her raising concerns about this on numerous occasions. The landlord should have provided clarification to the resident about this within its stage 1 or stage 2 response, but this was not done. It is also noted that the resident expressed concerns about the neighbour breeding dogs from her property, however, there is no evidence that the landlord made any effort to look into the matter and provide a response at either stage of the complaint, rather the landlord unfoundedly assert that the resident may have been mistaken by which neighbour had a dog.
The escalation to stage 2 was also delayed by the landlord as although it advised the resident would get a response in 2 weeks from an independent party, there is no evidence that an update was provided to the resident. This resulted in the resident contacting this Service, following which the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. The escalation should have been done when the resident initially requested and the Ombudsman cannot see that any apology or recognition of this failing, was considered by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not provide acknowledgment and it does not provide any details about the actions it will take with regards to keeping residents informed of any delays. The Service recommends that the landlord should include timescales for keeping residents updated regarding and ensure that complaints are acknowledged within a reasonable timescale that all members of staff can adhere to.
The landlord’s final response focussed mainly on the resident’s complaint regarding the staff handling of the complaint, particularly about the resident being discriminated against by members of staff. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord had to address these issues, the letter indicated that any further issues raised by the resident in regard to staff complaints would have potential repercussions on her tenancy, such as losing her home. Instead of focusing on the resident’s reports as the ‘victim’ with respect to the ASB, the landlord unreasonably put emphasis on the actions it would take against her as the ‘perpetrator’. As such, the landlord failed to provide clear and accurate steps to demonstrate how it addressed the resident’s ASB concerns fairly in line with its policies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handing of her concerns about staff discriminatory conduct is out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord has failed to adhere to its ASB policy with regards to the resident’s complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord recorded the resident’s concerns about the dog fouling and barking as general enquiries as the resident indicated these actions were malicious and negatively impacting on her. The landlord should have provided clearer and accurate steps to demonstrate how it addressed the resident’s ASB concerns fairly in line with its policies, but instead it unfairly applied its policy by issuing a final warning prior to any previous warnings.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a legally binding decision about the resident’s concerns of discriminatory conduct by the landlord’s staff as this is not within our jurisdiction. The resident is advised to seek independent legal advice or alternatively, speak with the Equality and Human Rights Commission with regards to her concerns about racial discrimination by the landlord’s staff.
The landlord did not acknowledge that its first response did not cover all the resident’s concerns. The landlord also failed to advise the resident regarding her neighbours approved permission to have a pet. The landlord delayed in providing the resident with the response from both the third party and itself and no evidence was provided to indicate that a holding letter was issued to advise of any delays.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Compensate the resident £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the length of time she has been left to deal with the ASB and its failure to follow the correct ASB process in line with its policy.
2. Compensate the resident £100 for the failure to issue the final response within its policy timescales and failure to fully cover all points raised by the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to ensure its staff are fully aware of its processes with regards to ASB, keeping a clear record to indicate that the process has been followed.
The landlord is also recommended to update its Complaint Handling Policy to include timescales for acknowledgements of complaints and updating residents if the complaint investigation is delayed.