Soho Housing Association Limited (202427170)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427170

Soho Housing Association Limited

15 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, intimidation, and targeted behaviour from a member of staff.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom, third floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to their physical health and they also live with depression.
  2. This complaint primarily relates to interactions between the resident and a specific member of staff. For the purposes of this report, all contact from the member of staff will be referred to as contact from “the landlord” unless further explanation is required.
  3. The landlord has been in regular contact with the resident over a number of issues since at least 19 July 2022. The landlord has sent numerous emails to the resident since this date, requesting they take various actions in relation to rubbish, communal gates, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and repairs. The landlord sent some of the emails directly to the resident and it sent some as bulk emails to the whole block.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 December 2024. The resident said they felt harassed, intimidated, and targeted by a member of staff. The resident said the behaviour had affected their health and wellbeing.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 20 February 2025. It did not respond to the concerns raised in relation to ASB cases or repairs. It said it had already addressed those issues in earlier complaint responses, some of which had already been referred to this Service. The landlord said, following its investigation, it could not conclude that the member of staff’s behaviour amounted to harassment. However, it offered £200 compensation for poor communication and complaint handling delays.
  6. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said it did not believe it was a case of harassment, but a staff capability matter. It apologised and offered an additional £100 compensation for the lack of appropriate management of ASB reports, bringing the total compensation to £300.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred their complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said they wanted the landlord to apologise and increase the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. In their complaint, the resident raised concerns relating to staff conduct during the management of ASB cases and repairs. The landlord has responded to these issues in separate complaint responses. The resident has separately referred those complaints to us, and we have investigated them under case references 202214269, 202347698, and 202220416. As we have already considered those complaints, we will not revisit them as part of this investigation.

The resident’s reports of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, intimidation, and targeted behaviour from a member of staff

  1. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of its equality, diversity and inclusion policy. The policy is not available on its website, although other policies make reference to its existence. Therefore, it has not been possible to determine whether the landlord’s actions have been in line with its policy.
  2. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, a landlord must not unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristics. The Act describes harassment as a form of discrimination. Although it is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident, we cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010, as this would be a matter for the court. We can, however, decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act.
  3. The landlord has provided limited evidence in this case. We have seen copies of emails from the landlord to the resident in relation to housing management matters. We have also seen an email sent by the landlord in March 2023 informing the resident that it had sent a test email to see whether a bulk communication was successful. The resident said they received the bulk email over 20 times.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident informed the landlord of their trans name and preferred pronouns. It is also unclear from the landlord’s evidence whether, in response, it updated its records to reflect the resident’s preferences. This would have been a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take, and had it done so, it may have avoided the need for escalation.
  5. The landlord sent the resident an email on 4 December 2024 asking them not to move the bins. The evidence shows that the landlord did not address the resident by their trans name. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and asked it to stop the member of staff from sending any further emails. The resident said, if they received any further emails, they would report the matter to the police as harassment.
  6. This was a serious allegation, yet there is no evidence to show the landlord responded or put measures in place with regards to future contact. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident told the landlord the emails were a trigger for them.
  7. The member of staff sent the resident a further email on 17 December 2024 asking them to remove a padlock from the gate. In response, the resident told the landlord they were reporting the matter to the police. The resident also sent a separate email informing the landlord they had contacted the equality advisory service as they felt that by ignoring their trans name, the landlord was harassing them. The resident also pointed out that the landlord was not using their correct pronouns. They said they had relapsed into depression, felt suicidal and had contacted the emergency services as a result. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email. This was unreasonable in the circumstances given the seriousness of the content in terms of both the allegations and the resident’s welfare.
  8. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 December 2024. They said they felt the landlord’s behaviour was unacceptable. This was because the resident felt targeted, intimidated, harassed, and threatened. The resident said the landlord had ignored their trans name and caused continuing anxiety, poor health, fear, depression, sleep disturbances, panic attacks, and other mental health and wellbeing issues. The resident told the landlord they believed the landlord’s behaviour amounted to harassment due to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2025. It asked the resident to provide details of when they felt harassed, including the date, times, location, those present, and what they could remember about each incident. The landlord also spoke to the resident on 23 January 2025, although it has not provided a transcript or file note of the call.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 20 February 2025. It listed the alleged incidents it had considered within its investigation. It acknowledged that there may have been some miscommunication in the contact made by the member of staff. It recognised that communication could have been phrased more thoughtfully to avoid offence and it said it understood why the resident felt it had directed the messages specifically towards them.
  11. The landlord confirmed it had sent some of the messages to the whole block, and not just to the resident. It said it recognised it could have handled the situation with more consideration and it should have investigated before reaching out to the resident with a tone that could be considered accusatory. The landlord said, following its investigation it could not conclude that the reported behaviour amounted to harassment. It said there had been a breakdown in communication between the member of staff and the resident. It said this was combined with factors such as inadequate training and email etiquette, which it had since addressed. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 in recognition of its poor communication. It said it recognised the need for training and it confirmed that the member of staff had moved to a different area.
  12. The resident did not accept the landlord’s findings and escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2025.
  13. In its stage 2 response dated 11 April 2025, the landlord said the resident’s complaint had highlighted the need for it to review its internal training. It said it upheld the resident’s concerns about staff capability. It said it did not believe this was a case of harassment, but a staff capability matter. It apologised for the stress and frustration caused. However, although it concluded at stage 1 that it would not consider conduct related to past ASB cases, it offered the resident an additional £100 for lack of appropriate management of ASB reports.
  14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take 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.
  15. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did complete an investigation into the resident’s complaint. It spoke to the resident, asked for relevant evidence, reviewed the evidence, and spoke to the member of staff concerned. It appropriately apologised for the identified failings and it offered compensation. It also identified a number of learnings from the complaint in relation to staff training and it confirmed it had moved the member of staff to another area.
  16. However, the landlord has not shown within its complaint responses that it properly considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. This was inappropriate as the resident told the landlord prior to their complaint, and within their formal complaint, that they considered the landlord’s behaviour as harassment under the Act. They also told the landlord that it was not using their trans name or their correct pronouns. Yet there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered these concerns during its investigation, or how it could put things right. The landlord made no reference to the Equality Act 2010, or its understanding of its duties and responsibilities under the Act, within either of its formal complaint responses.
  17. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were failings in the case, it has not shown that it recognised all the failings, as set out above. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. Therefore, we consider the offer of £200 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings.
  18. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £325 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer of £200) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made an offer of compensation which is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident in the circumstances and further orders in relation to staff training.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 December 2024. The landlord confirmed on 10 January 2025 that it would provide an outcome by 20 January 2025. The landlord extended the timeframe for a response by 10 working days on 27 January 2025 due to the volume of documentation provided by the resident.
  3. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 20 February 2025. This was inappropriate as it was 2 weeks outside of the total timeframe set within the landlord’s policy (including the 10 day extension period). However, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 11 April 2025. This was just over 7 weeks from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy. There is no evidence to show that the landlord formally extended the response timeframe. This was inappropriate. However, the landlord apologised for the delay within the stage 2 response and confirmed the offer of £100 for complaint handling failures.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s apology and its offer of £100 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.
  6. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, intimidation, and targeted behaviour from a member of staff.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, via their solicitor, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £325 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £200 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, intimidation, and targeted behaviour from a member of staff.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident, via their solicitor, to confirm their correct personal details and pronoun preferences. The landlord must then ensure its systems are up to date with the correct information.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange appropriate Equality Act 2010 training for all relevant staff, to ensure it understands its duties and responsibilities under the Act.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £100 it offered in relation to its complaint handling in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendation.