From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Orbit Group Limited (202442734)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442734

Orbit Group Limited

28 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and racial harassment.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff at a meeting.
    3. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow and the resident has an assured tenancy which began in December 2020. The landlord has advised us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. In June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that one of his neighbours had breached the tenancy conditions by not controlling his dog in the communal areas, installing a gazebo outside his home, erecting signs on the estate and holding parties in the evenings. He then contacted the landlord in July 2023 to report that he had been subjected to verbal abuse and racial harassment from the same neighbour (referred to in this report as Neighbour A) and from 2 other neighbours (referred to in this report as Neighbours B and C).
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident in August 2023 to say it had liaised with the police regarding the reported hate crime incidents. It said the police had investigated the incidents and decided not to take further action. The landlord said it had carried out its own investigations into the reported tenancy breaches and found that Neighbour A had removed the gazebo and signage. Therefore, the landlord said it had closed the case.
  4. During August to October 2023, the resident continued to report harassment and verbal abuse and Neighbour A made counter allegations of harassment against the resident. In September 2023, the police and the landlord carried out a joint visit to Neighbour A and the landlord sent him a warning letter. The police also made further enquiries by speaking to other residents on the estate as part of their investigation into the reports of hate crime incidents.
  5. In October 2023, both the resident and Neighbour A agreed to enter into mediation. The resident met with the mediator in November 2023 and Neighbour A met the mediator in April 2024. The resident reported that Neighbour A continued to breach the tenancy conditions by installing CCTV cameras and by placing benches, chairs and other items on the communal green outside his home. The landlord sent a warning letter to Neighbour A in June 2024 asking him to remove the items from the communal area and to control his dogs. As there had been counter allegations made by Neighbour A about the resident, the police issued Community Protection Warnings to Neighbour A and the resident in June 2024.
  6. During July to October 2024, the mediation was halted due to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by both parties, which resulted in further police involvement. The landlord also asked both parties to sign a ‘tenancy management plan’ setting out the landlord’s expectations in relation to residents’ behaviours and their use of communal land. However, they both refused to sign the document. The landlord arranged a residents’ meeting on 14 November 2024 to support community cohesion by discussing options for a community meeting place on the estate. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2024 to make a stage 1 complaint in which he said he and his family had been experiencing racism, intimidation, harassment and threats from 3 of his neighbours. He also referred to a recent meeting at which he said the landlord’s staff had not intervened when Neighbour A had made racist remarks.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 December 2024 in which it stated the following:
    1. It would carry out an internal investigation into the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff at the residents’ meeting on 14 November 2024.
    2. The investigation would be carried out in accordance with the landlord’s human resources policies and processes but for confidentiality reasons the landlord would not be able to share the outcome of the investigation with the resident.
    3. The landlord said it had worked with the police to resolve the ASB, harassment and other reported incidents, including using mediation and issuing Community Protection Warnings. However, the efforts by the landlord and the police had not been successful.
    4. It was continuing to work with the police and had created an action plan, which involved the landlord removing any personal items from the communal grounds.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 December 2024 and asked for his complaint to be escalated because he said the landlord had not addressed his concerns about the meeting held on 14 November 2024. He said he had experienced discrimination and racism from the landlord’s staff. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 20 January 2025 in which it stated the following:
    1. The officer investigating the resident’s complaint about staff conduct had spoken to the resident and had now completed her investigation.
    2. Although the landlord could not share the outcome of the investigation, the investigating officer would contact the resident to share her findings on why the staff at the meeting did not take action. The landlord concluded there had not been a service failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff.
    3. The landlord had sent a letter to residents on 27 November 2024 about removing any personal items from the communal grounds. This had been followed by a further letter sent on 17 December 2024 asking residents to remove their items by 6 January 2025.
    4. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  9. The resident contacted us on 23 January 2025 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. He said that although he had provided the landlord with names of witnesses who were present at the meeting on 14 November 2024, the landlord had not interviewed them as part of its investigation.
  10. The landlord’s records state that Neighbour A died in early 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his stage 2 complaint dated 18 December 2024, the resident said he had experienced discrimination and racism from the landlord’s staff. Although we can consider whether the actions taken by the landlord’s staff in responding to the resident’s concerns were reasonable, we are unable to make a legal finding of discrimination or decide whether the resident experienced racism. These would be matters for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against or subjected to racism, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options.
  2. In his stage 1 complaint dated 25 November 2024, the resident advised the landlord that he had experienced harassment for 2 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from June 2023.
  3. We have received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 20 January 2025. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and racial harassment

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states:
    1. “We will carry out a risk-based assessment and will agree an action plan with each complainant or witness”.
    2. Where the landlord does not have the responsibility or powers to deal with the allegations made, it will work in partnership with other professional organisations such as the police or local authority.
  2. The landlord’s ASB and Hate Incidents Procedure states:
    1. As part of its evidence gathering, the landlord may take statements from the perpetrator and/or witnesses.
    2. When the landlord believes a case is at the point of completion, they will contact the complainant to advise of the outcome of the case. They will then close the case unless any new information is brought to light.
  3. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. However, our role is not to establish whether the reported ASB and racial harassment happened or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and racial harassment was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023 to report a breach of tenancy by one of his neighbours (Neighbour A).The landlord’s Tenancy team asked the resident to provide evidence of the breach, which he provided. The landlord advised the resident on 17 July 2023 that it had reviewed the evidence and did not consider the evidence showed Neighbour A had breached his tenancy. The landlord therefore closed the case. The landlord had acted reasonably by requesting evidence of the reported breach of tenancy and then reviewing this evidence to decide whether there had been a breach.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 July 2023 to report ongoing racial harassment and verbal abuse from 3 of his neighbours. On the same day, the landlord carried out a risk assessment and produced an initial action plan. It was appropriate that the landlord had carried out a risk assessment and initial action plan as this was in line with its policy. The initial action plan involved the landlord contacting the police for further information. This was reasonable as the resident had reported a hate crime and had advised the landlord that he had contacted the police.
  6. As part of its investigations, the landlord spoke to Neighbour Aon 1 August 2023. During this interview, the neighbour made counter allegations of ASB against the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to the resident’s neighbour as part of its investigations as this was in line with its procedure for gathering evidence.
  7. The landlord’s notes state that the police carried out investigations into the resident’s reports of hate crime incidents by speaking to the resident and Neighbour A. The police then decided to take no further action. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 August 2023 and advised him that it had found no evidence of noise nuisance or other ASB. It added that the police had decided to take no further action regarding his reports of hate crime incidents. Consequently, the landlord said it was closing the case.
  8. Based on the evidence seen, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident it was closing its case because:
    1. The police had decided to take no further action in relation to the reports of hate crime incidents.
    2. The landlord said it had not found any evidence of ASB.
  9. As the landlord had decided to close the case, it had correctly followed its procedure by writing to the resident to advise him of the closure. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2023 and said he was unhappy the landlord had closed the case. He said there had been a further incident involving Neighbour B who he said had shouted racially abusive comments at him. The resident confirmed that he had reported the matter to the police.
  10. The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 August 2023 to obtain a full account of the incident and said it had liaised with the police who were investigating the matter. It was reasonable that the landlord had spoken to the resident to obtain his account of the incident. It was also reasonable that the landlord had contacted the police because the resident had reported a possible hate crime and the police are responsible for investigating criminal matters. The landlord advised the resident that it would need to wait for the police to conclude their investigations before deciding on its next course of action, which was reasonable.
  11. The landlord’s records show that it maintained close contact with the police during August and September 2023 regarding the resident’s reports of hate crime incidents. For example, the landlord jointly visited the resident and Neighbour A with the police on 21 September 2023. The landlord’s notes state that the police decided to deal with the matter informally by giving the neighbour ‘words of advice’. It was appropriate for the landlord to have worked closely with the police as its ASB Policy says it will work in partnership with other organisations, such as the police.
  12. On 3 October 2023, the police advised the landlord that the resident had made further reports of racial harassment against Neighbour A. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 5 October 2023 and he denied the allegations. The landlord spoke to the police on 11 October 2023 who said they had interviewed the neighbour and he had made counter allegations against the resident.
  13. The landlord suggested to the resident and Neighbour A that they go through mediation. Both parties agreed to this and the landlord sent the mediation referral form to an independent mediator on 19 October 2023. The landlord’s records show that the mediator met with the resident on 27 November 2023 and with Neighbour A on 25 April 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange mediation as it is one of the non-legal actions available for use in its ASB and Hate Incidents Procedure and both parties had agreed to engage in mediation.
  14. On 14 May 2024, the resident made further reports of ASB and tenancy breaches against Neighbour A. As a result, the landlord sent warning letters to the neighbour on 21 May 2024 and 14 June 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to make use of warning letters as these are listed in its ASB and Hate Incidents Procedure as one of the non-legal actions it may take in response to reports of ASB.
  15. Following further discussions between the landlord and the police, the police issued Community Protection Warnings (CPW) to both the resident and Neighbour A on 21 June 2024. The landlord’s notes state that both the resident and Neighbour A disputed the CPWs. We have not assessed whether it was appropriate to serve the CPWs as they were issued by the police rather than by the landlord.
  16. Following further reports of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by Neighbour A during late June 2024, the landlord opened a new ASB case and completed a new risk assessment and action plan on 2 July 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord had carried out a new risk assessment and produced a new action plan as these actions were in line with its policy. One of the actions agreed with the resident on 2 July 2024 was that it would again try to refer the case to mediation. This showed that the landlord was still trying to improve relations between the 2 parties, which was reasonable.
  17. The landlord also produced a tenancy management plan and visited the resident and Neighbour A on 8 October 2024 to ask them to sign the plan. The purpose behind the plan was to set out the landlord’s expectations in terms of behaviours and for both parties to agree to adhere to these behaviours. Both the resident and the neighbour refused to sign the plan. However, it was reasonable that the landlord was once seeking to use one of the non-legal tools in its procedure to resolve the reported ASB.
  18. On 5 November 2024, the resident advised the landlord that one of his other neighbours (Neighbour C) had made a rude hand gesture towards the resident. This had been followed by an angry exchange of words. The landlord opened a new ASB case and produced a risk assessment and action plan on 6 November 2024. The landlord had therefore acted appropriately in accordance with its procedure by producing a risk assessment and action plan.
  19. The landlord spoke with Neighbour C on 6 November 2024 and verbally warned her about her behaviour. Giving a verbal warning is one of the non-legal actions listed in the landlord’s ASB and Hate Incidents Procedure. Therefore, the landlord had acted in line with its procedure. The landlord had also kept the resident updated by informing him that it had given a verbal warning. This was reasonable as it meant the resident was aware the landlord had acted promptly to address his report of ASB.
  20. The landlord phoned the resident on 12 and 21 November and on 4 December 2024 to check whether there had been any further incidents involving Neighbour C. The resident confirmed there had been no further incidents following the verbal warning. It was appropriate the landlord had maintained contact with the resident as the action plan had stated it would contact the resident within 5 to 10 days.
  21. As a way of easing tensions on the estate, the landlord arranged a residents’ meeting, which was held on 14 November 2024. The meeting was attended by various residents, including Neighbour A and the resident. The minutes of the meeting show that various issues were discussed, including concerns that had previously been raised by the resident, such as the use of the communal garden by Neighbour A. Given that the resident (and other residents) had reported various tenancy breaches on the estate, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a residents’ meeting to identify solutions and help improve relations on the estate.
  22. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 November 2024 to report that one of his other neighbours (Neighbour B) had been verbally abusive towards him as he passed her window. The landlord opened a new ASB case on the same day and sent the resident incident record sheets so he could note any further incidents. These actions were appropriate as they were in line with the landlord’s procedure.
  23. The landlord spoke to Neighbour B, who made counter allegations against the resident. As part of its investigation of the resident’s report of verbal abuse, it was reasonable for the landlord to speak to Neighbour B as this was in line with its procedure. The landlord phoned the resident on 9 December 2024 and 6 and 14 January 2025 to check whether there had been any further incidents involving Neighbour B. The resident advised the landlord there had not been any further incidents. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident at different times so it could monitor whether there were any ongoing issues.
  24. The resident contacted the landlord and police on 26 and 31 December 2024 to report further incidents involving Neighbour A. He said the neighbour had made an abusive hand gesture and used abusive language towards him and his wife as they were driving out of the estate.
  25. The landlord contacted the police on 2 January 2025 to ask whether they had any updates on the incidents reported by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to request an update from the police as the landlord was aware the incidents had been reported to them. The landlord contacted the police again for a reply on 7 January 2025 and it requested a meeting with the police to discuss the reported incidents. This was again reasonable as it showed the landlord was maintaining close communication with the police regarding the reported hate crime incidents.
  26. The landlord completed a risk assessment and action plan on 17 January 2025 for the latest incidents. The main task in the action plan was that it would continue to liaise with the police regarding the reported hate crime incidents. It was appropriate for the landlord to produce a new risk assessment and action plan in line with its procedure as the resident had reported new incidents. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to receive updates from the police. For example, they provided an update to the landlord on 17 January 2025 to confirm they were still investigating the reported incidents.
  27. As the latest action plan had noted the need for the landlord to continue liaising with the police, it was appropriate that it continued to do so. The close contact between the landlord and the police showed good partnership working.
  28. Part of the resident’s complaints of ASB was that Neighbour A had placed various furniture items in the communal grassed area outside his property. For example, the resident wrote to the landlord about this on14 May 2024. In response, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 21 May,14 June and 13 August 2024 about the items.
  29. The landlord also discussed the use of the communal area at the residents’ meeting on 14 November 2024. It then sent letters to all residents about removing items from the area on 27 November and on 17 December 2024. Following these letters, the landlord removed some of the items on 6 January 2025 and it stated in its stage 2 reply that the remaining items were scheduled for removal on 24 January 2025. Having assessed the landlord’s actions, our view is that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to ensure residents were clear that the garden area was a communal space and that items left in the area would be removed.
  30. Overall, we have found that the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB and racial harassment reasonably because:
    1. In line with its procedure, it produced a risk assessment and action plan whenever it opened a new case.
    2. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and tenancy breaches by interviewing the alleged perpetrators.
    3. It used various non-legal remedies to try to resolve the reports of ASB, such as mediation, verbal warnings and warning letters. It also attempted to use tenancy management plans to set out its expected behaviours.
    4. It monitored open ASB cases, for example by contacting the resident to check if there had been any further incidents in relation to open ASB cases.
    5. The landlord closed ASB cases in accordance with its procedures, for example by writing to the resident to inform him of the case closure.
    6. It worked in partnership with the police regarding the reported hate crime incidents. For example, it carried out joint visits with the police to interview the resident and alleged perpetrators.
    7. The landlord arranged a residents’ meeting to resolve some of the tensions on the estate.
    8. It took reasonable and proportionate action to ensure the garden area was used as a communal space.
  31. We have therefore found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and racial harassment.

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff at a meeting

  1. The landlord’s Complaints and Customer Care Procedure states:
    1. Where a complaint is about a member of staff, “action taken against any individual will be in line with [the landlord’s] HR policies and will not be disclosed to the complainant”.
  2. It is not our role to decide whether the staff members’ actions were appropriate. Our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 November 2024 and said he had attended a meeting with other residents and members of the landlord’s staff on 14 November 2024. He said he was unhappy about the conduct of 2 staff members who were present at the meeting. He explained that they had failed to act when one of his neighbours had been racist towards him during the meeting. The resident followed this up by writing to the landlord on 20 and 25 November 2024 and said he had not received a reply to his email of 15 November 2024.
  4. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s email of 15 November 2024 until 2 December 2024, which was more than 2 weeks after he had raised his concerns with the landlord. This was unreasonable as the resident had reported being subjected to racist comments at the meeting and therefore any concerns about the conduct of its staff at the meeting should have warranted an urgent response. The delay led to the resident having to chase the landlord for a response and then submitting a stage 1 complaint on 25 November 2024.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 December 2024 and confirmed it would follow its human resources policies/processes and carry out an internal investigation into the conduct of its staff during the meeting on 14 November 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident it would investigate the matter through its human resources policies/processes as this was in line with its Complaints and Customer Care Procedure.
  6. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that it would not be able to share the outcome of its investigation with the resident because of confidentiality. This was also reasonable as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  7. On 19 December 2024, the landlord appointed an investigating officer to look into the resident’s reports about staff conduct and the officer phoned the resident on 20 December 2024 to obtain further details. The landlord had therefore appointed an investigating officer within a reasonable timescale following its stage 1 reply. The officer had then contacted the resident promptly to obtain further details about the incident.
  8. The investigating officer wrote to the resident on 2 January 2025 to summarise the main points from her conversation with the resident held on 20 December 2024. The notes included the names of 3 witnesses who the resident had asked the officer to contact as part of her investigation. It was reasonable that the landlord had written to the resident summarising the main points of their conversation as this would give the resident the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies.
  9. The landlord’s records show that on 2 January 2025, the investigating officer wrote to 2 of the 3 witnesses the resident had suggested. The officer received a statement from one of the witnesses outlining the events of the meeting. The landlord’s records state that the other witness it had written to did not reply to the investigating officer’s email. The landlord also interviewed all of the staff members who were present at the meeting in question and took detailed notes of each interview. The evidence seen shows that the landlord made contact with various staff members and non-staff members who were present at the meeting in order to gather information about the events at the meeting. This was reasonable as statements from witnesses form an important part of any investigation into staff conduct.
  10. One of the resident’s concerns was that although his wife was present at the meeting on 14 November 2025, she was not contacted by the landlord to give a witness statement. The landlord’s investigation report shows that the landlord did not consider it necessary to contact her for a statement. It is not our role to decide whether it would have been appropriate for the landlord to interview particular witnesses. It is for the landlord to gather the evidence it considers is reasonable to enable it to make an informed decision. The landlord’s records state that it contacted the resident on 29 January 2025 to explain its reasons for not contacting the resident’s wife as a witness. This was reasonable as it enabled the resident to understand the reasons for the landlord’s decision.
  11. In his stage 2 complaint, the resident also expressed his concerns about the landlord conducting an internal investigation and not sharing its findings with him. The investigating officer spoke to the resident on 7 January 2025 and wrote to him the next day to discuss these concerns. She noted that the resident wanted an answer as to why the staff who were present at the meeting had not responded when the neighbour had made his comments. The investigating officer therefore agreed that once she had concluded the investigation, she would look at whether any information could be shared with the resident.
  12. It was reasonable that the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss his unease about the internal investigation as this provided an opportunity to understand his concerns. The landlord’s proposal to review whether it could share any information with the resident was also reasonable as a way of giving the resident confidence in the landlord’s investigation.
  13. In its stage 2 reply dated 20 January 2025, the landlord confirmed that the investigating officer would contact the resident in the coming days to share her findings about why staff at the meeting had not taken action regarding the neighbour’s comments. The landlord phoned the resident on 29 January 2025 to do this and followed up the call with an email on the same day. It was appropriate that the landlord had kept its commitment to provide this information to the resident.
  14. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord took the following steps to investigate the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff at the meeting:
    1. It confirmed to the resident that the complaint about staff conduct would be investigated in accordance with its human resources policies/processes.
    2. It appointed an investigating officer specifically to investigate the element of the resident’s complaint relating to staff conduct.
    3. The landlord interviewed the resident to understand his complaint regarding staff conduct and wrote to him to confirm its understanding.
    4. The landlord contacted 2 of the 3 people the resident had named as witnesses and wrote to the resident to explain why it did not consider it necessary to interview his wife.
    5. The landlord interviewed the staff members who had been present at the meeting.
    6. The landlord advised the resident of its findings into why its staff had not acted when the neighbour made the comments at the meeting.
  15. Overall, we have found that once the complaint about staff conduct had been assigned to an investigating officer, the landlord’s handling of the investigation and communication were reasonable. However, there was a delay in the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s email of 15 November 2024 in which he first outlined his concerns about staff conduct. As a consequence, the resident chased the landlord twice for a reply. Although this delay would not have changed the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, it resulted in the resident spending additional time and effort chasing a response. We have therefore found there was service failure due to the delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial complaint about the conduct of its staff.
  16. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for this delay and to pay him compensation of £50 to put things right in relation to:
    1. The additional time and effort he spent chasing the landlord for a response.
    2. The disappointment and distress he experienced, as indicated in his stage 1 complaint, because the landlord took more than 2 weeks to acknowledge his email.

The associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the stage 2 acknowledgement.
  2. These response timescales may be extended if more time is needed to respond. Where this is the case, the landlord will provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe and a date by which they will receive the response. However, the policy states that any extension of time will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2024 to complain that he had not received a response to his earlier enquiry. The landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint and sent an acknowledgement on 2 December 2024. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, which was appropriate as it was in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 December 2024, which was 10 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The timescale for its response was appropriate as it was in line with its policy.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 December 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 December 2024 which was appropriate as it was within the 5 working day timescale stipulated in its complaints policy. The landlord then sent its stage 2 reply on 20 January 2025, which was 20 working days after the acknowledgement. Therefore, the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
  6. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and therefore we have found there was no maladministration in terms of its complaints handling.

Determination

  1. 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 antisocial behaviour and racial harassment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff at a meeting.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £50 compensation for the initial delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff at the meeting.