Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202005006)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005006

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

31 March 2021

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 an anti-social behaviour report made against the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since 27 September 2013.
On 2 October 2019 the landlord’s internal emails record that the resident’s neighbour had called the landlord reporting that she had been carrying out gardening work at the shared front hedge when the resident had addressed her, calling her a “monkey” a few times and swearing at her. She had put the altercation on loudspeaker as she was speaking to her daughter on the phone at the time, which allowed the daughter to hear the incident over the phone.
It was noted in these emails that the landlord intended to draft up an acceptable behaviour contract setting out that the resident was not to be abusive, racially or otherwise to the neighbour, not to throw things into her garden and not to initiate contact with her. Reference was also made to a similar incident two months prior when the resident allegedly swore at the neighbour but did not use racial language.
Another email of the same day noted the landlord had reported the incident to the police, with the latter noting that they would arrange a visit with the resident. It was agreed by the landlord and the police that they would undertake a joint visit to discuss the acceptable behaviour contract. It is noted that the police had suggested the using an acceptable neighbour agreement which is a similar but separate document.
On 8 October 2019 the police wrote to the landlord confirming that it had continued to discuss the matter with the ASB team. Its position was that, in the absence of multiple incidents occurring, nothing had yet occurred that would warrant dealing with the matter beyond words of advice, unless the neighbour wished to pursue criminal charges. It considered the best course of action to be the acceptable behaviour contract from the landlord, and also noted that a particular police officer’s contact details could be given to the resident and neighbour for them to seek advice in the case of future incidents.
On 14 October 2019 the landlord attended the resident’s property accompanied by a police officer. They discussed the report by the neighbour with the resident, who stated that his words to the neighbour were not intended to be racist, which the landlord accepted while noting that they could have been interpreted as such and had upset the neighbour. The landlord stated that its role was not to judge his intentions or imply anything about the circumstances of the incident.
The landlord brought with it an ‘Acceptable Behaviour Contract’ which included the following provisions:
1. The resident would not be racially abusive towards his neighbour and/or her visitors at her property.
2. The resident would not be rude, abusive, threatening or intimidating towards the neighbours.
3. The resident committed to the landlord and local police not to act in a manner that causes or was likely to cause alarm or distress to one or more persons not in the same household.
4. If the resident were to breach these provisions which the landlord or police considered to amount to ASB, either party could make an application for an injunction or criminal behaviour order. It noted that breach of such orders could give rise to a supervision order, fine or up to three months detention.
The resident stated that he was not willing to sign the contract, which the landlord accepted on the basis of his version of events.
On 16 October 2019 the resident raised a complaint against the landlord on the basis of the following points:
1. He considered that the matter had been mishandled, and the investigation had been carried out in a one-sided and biased manner. He stated that the landlord had not contacted him before taking action, and instead jumped to conclusions by making false assumptions and pre-emptively deciding that the resident was guilty of racist behaviour. This was evidenced by the fact that the landlord had attended the property with the contract already prepared for him to sign.
2. He had been reporting issues with his neighbour for some time, and the landlord had never acknowledged these concerns. He felt the landlord had responded to this ASB report in the way it did due to the resident previously raising a complaint regarding a particular staff member.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange a time to discuss the matter over the telephone. The resident replied on the same day requesting his preference for the matters to be discussed via email for the purposes of maintaining thorough records.
On 21 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting his request and also stating that it would be happy to discuss the matter on the telephone following the formal written response. It summarised the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. The landlord did not contact the resident before taking any action.
2. In contacting the resident about the allegation, the staff member had implied the resident was a racist and this was defamation of character.
3. That the police should not have been involved.
4. That the landlord did not handle the allegation in a fair way, and this was a retaliation for the resident’s previous complaint.
The landlord responded to each of the points raised by the resident in turn:
1. The landlord had received a report that the resident had made a racist insult to his neighbour, calling them a monkey. It noted its ASB policy set out its definition of a hate crime or incident as “any behaviour which the victim or another person thinks is motivated by a prejudice or hate because of the victim’s difference or perceived difference.” It noted these actions could have severe impacts and therefore the landlord had attended to speak to the resident about the incident. This step was taken to investigate the allegation and give the resident an opportunity to put forward his account of what happened. The landlord had not taken any steps prior to this visit and it was all part of the process of investigating the allegation.
2. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the allegation. The resident had confirmed during this that he had called the neighbour a monkey, but had not meant it in a racist way, but rather was to say they were “a chattering or talking monkey”. The landlord explained to the resident that its role was not to judge his intentions or imply anything but noted that this language could be interpreted as racist and that it had upset the neighbour. This was confirmed to the resident in a letter. It would be up to the resident to seek advice regarding a legal claim for defamation.
3. The landlord worked closely with the police, including when a hate crime is reported. In contacting the police, the landlord was following its ASB policy which sets out its partnership with other agencies in addressing such issues.
4. When the landlord receives an allegation, its policy requires that the allegation be investigated. The visit only took place because the report was received and the staff member would not have been doing their job properly if they had not attended to investigate. They brought an acceptable behaviour contract with them but listened to and accepted the resident’s side of the story. Given the resident had explained he did not wish to sign the agreement, the landlord just sent a follow-up letter noting what had been discussed. It noted that if there were no further incidents, there would be no need for any further action.
5. In concluded that it had investigated the allegation fairly and done so in conjunction with the police in line with its policy. It was not its intention to have a negative impact on the resident’s mental health and there were no plans to take any further actions as long as there were no further incidents. It noted the resident had stated he was not going to have any further dealings with the neighbours, and it stated that this sounded like a good way forward.
On 23 and 24 October 2019 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated on the grounds that he still considered that the investigation had been mishandled. He considered that there was no corroborating evidence and that the steps taken by the landlord had been in response to nothing more than an allegation. The resident also requested that separate complaints be raised for defamation of character, victimisation and “maladministration – mishandling.”
On 29 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it would escalate the most recent complaint to stage two of its process. It noted that the three separate complaints the resident had requested be raised had each previously been addressed as part of its complaints process, but that the points would each be referenced again clearly within the stage two response for the current complaint. It provided the resident with a copy of the complaints process.
On 5 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an update.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding which had been due to the staff member’s illness and absence from work. In the complaint response it set out the following:
1. Having reviewed the requests to raise new complaints regarding defamation of character, victimisation and maladministration/mishandling, it considered it had covered these points in previous complaint responses. Nevertheless, it repeated its position on each of the matters in the complaint response.
2. The action taken by the landlord in response to the report of racist behaviour was to investigate the issue by making contact with the alleged perpetrator, being the resident, in order to establish the facts and allow a clear right of response. Though the resident had expressed concern that the investigation was one-sided and biased, the approach taken demonstrated a clear, non-biased and pragmatic approach which sought to allow all parties to have their voices heard. As a result the landlord did not consider that the matter had been mishandled.
3. It had considered the resident’s position that the landlord had defamed his character, failed to contact him and jumped to conclusions, assuming him guilty of making the racist insult. As it had outlined, this was not the case. It took all reports of hate crime seriously, but always carried out the necessary investigations in order to establish the facts. It had followed this process, and there was no evidence that it had failed to investigate and instead jumped to conclusions.
4. It agreed with the position set out in the stage one complaint response regarding the validity of the steps taken in the investigation, reiterating:
  1. The resident had been contacted by staff before any other action was taken.
  2. In order to investigate, it needed to make contact with the resident. Its intention in doing so was not to imply guilt but to establish the facts and allow the resident the right of reply.
  3. Neither the landlord nor resident was able to dictate how the insult was perceived by the alleged victim, and for this reason the matter was required to be taken seriously and as such reported and recorded with the police.
  4. Given the outcome of the investigation was that no enforcement action was taken against the resident, this indicated it had listened to the resident and taken into account the points he’d made. It felt this demonstrated it had made efforts to ensure the resident was treated fairly.
On 11 November 2019 the landlord closed the complaint. On 14 November 2019 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated again. On 15 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the complaint had exhausted its complaints process and stating that he could escalate it to the Ombudsman if he wished.
On 10 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that he was dissatisfied with the final response, stating that he believed the staff member intended to have him arrested at the visit which was evidenced by the attendance of the police officer. He also believed that his guilt had been predetermined based on the content of previous communications with him. The following day the landlord referred him to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord again noted that the complaints process had been exhausted and the resident would need to contact the Housing Ombudsman should he wish to progress it further.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy sets out the following:
1. Its response will vary for each case and be tailored to the needs of the residents involved. Depending on the circumstance of the case, it might take time to meet all parties to understand their views, advise residents on how they could change their behaviour to improve the relationship and talk to others who might have witnessed the incident.
2. A hate crime or incident is any behaviour which the victim or another person thinks is motivated by a prejudice or hate because of the victim’s difference or a perceived difference such as race, religion or sexual orientation. It notes that if a resident thinks they have been targeted on this basis, the landlord will respond to the report within one working day.
3. When investigating a case, the landlord will:
  1. Offer early intervention such as mediation to the resident and alleged perpetrator
  2. Use acceptable behaviour agreements and mediation services
  3. Issue warnings and cautions to deter future ASB
  4. Encourage perpetrators to change their behaviour, making use of referrals to support services
  5. Share information with the police and other agencies if it has permission from the victim to do so or if there is a risk of immediate harm.
4. The landlord cannot resolve every incident of ASB alone, especially if it’s a crime. It will develop and maintain positive and productive partnerships with the police, local authorities and specialist community and advocacy agencies to help them take action. If the landlord feels that another agency such as the police are better able to deal with the matter, such as if it’s a crime, it will direct the resident to them and work them to support the investigation as well as sharing information.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman relies on the evidence provided by the parties to establish what was communicated to a landlord in terms of both the reporting of ASB and the complaint, before then considering whether the steps taken by the landlord to address and resolve the issue were appropriate. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy establishes that the landlord will tailor its approach to reports of ASB based on the circumstances of each particular case.
Though the resident has repeatedly raised concerns that his case was dealt with in in a more heavy-handed manner than the reports he made against the same neighbour, the landlord is entitled to rely on its policy by responding in reasonable manner to the particular circumstances of this case. There is also no evidence in the landlord’s internal emails or otherwise to indicate that the decisions made in addressing the report were influenced by the resident having previously made a complaint against a member of staff.
The evidence indicates that the landlord largely followed its policy appropriately after it received the report of ASB against the resident. It made the decision to draft up an acceptable behaviour contract on the basis of the report’s severity, a decision which was also informed by a report from two months prior that the resident had sworn at the same neighbour, and there was a history of altercations between the two. It contacted the police on the grounds that the comments by the resident appeared to be racially motivated on the basis of the evidence available at that time. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which sets out a definition for a hate crime based on a victim’s belief that a negative action taken towards them was racially motivated. The landlord and police discussed the most appropriate response, and both parties agreed that the circumstances supported the approach of making a joint visit to the resident’s property and bringing the drafted contract.
The landlord’s internal emails of 8 October 2019 indicate that the landlord had continued to discuss the matter with the police following the initial report, seeking advice on the appropriate course of action to take. This was appropriate given its policy specifically notes that it will engage with other parties including the police in situations where said parties are in a specialised position to assist with resolving the issue.
The evidence of what took place at the meeting indicate that the landlord largely acted appropriately by taking the following actions:
1. Communicating to the resident the allegations that had been made
2. Giving him the opportunity to present his version of events which included the fact that he had not intended to convey a racist message
3. Accepting the resident’s account of events while nevertheless conveying to him that such words could and had been interpreted as racist
4. On the basis of the resident’s account, accepting his decision not to sign the acceptable behaviour contract
5. Noting that no further action would be taken if no further incidents arose and supporting the resident’s decision not to have further interactions with the neighbour.
Each of these actions were in line with the various elements of the landlord’s policy as they were aimed at establishing the facts of the incident and deterring future ASB behaviour and reports. The steps taken at the meeting demonstrated a reasonable approach in the circumstances given the severity of the report along with a respect for the resident’s version of events. A visit to the resident was an appropriate way to investigate the matter given the need to establish a clear account of what had occurred, whether this constituted a hate crime and to subsequently make an informed judgement on what actions would be required in response.
The ASB policy establishes that it was open to the landlord to draft up an acceptable behaviour agreement, and that it was supported in this approach by the police as well as a consideration of the context of the reported incident of two months prior. However, the resident has raised concerns that the document was drafted prior to any contact being made with him. The document itself appears to have been specifically drafted to make reference to the resident and the particular behaviours that were alleged to have occurred, rather than being a standard document with the resident’s name filled in as and where appropriate. It also made reference to potential criminal prosecution that could be undertaken against him in circumstances where he failed to adhere to these terms.
It is understandable that the resident would have been concerned about the contract’s content given he denied the allegations that he had been racially abusive to his neighbour. The landlord’s decision to draft the contract prior to meeting with him caused him distress given he had not yet provided his account of the incident and the action appeared to him to indicate the landlord was pre-empting the outcome of the meeting. However the landlord has justified this action given the nature of the report which it considered to be serious enough to justify this preparatory step. The landlord’s internal emails indicate that the contract was not taken to the meeting on the basis of a presumption of guilt, but rather for convenience’s sake so as to provide a resolution to the issue on that day. Nevertheless, it accepted his explanation that there was no racist intent behind his statements and resolved the matter in a different yet appropriate fashion by giving advice to the resident which would assist with the avoiding of similar problems in future. These were all appropriate steps to take in the circumstances.
Additionally the attendance of the police officer with the landlord’s staff member at the property was in line with the landlord’s policy to involve the appropriate agencies. It was a valid step to take given the subject matter of the allegation and did not cause significant harm to the resident. Though further thought could have been given to the way the resident would interpret this, there is no evidence that the landlord nor the police pressured the resident to sign the contract and he was given an opportunity to present his account without undue influence from either of the attending parties. No enforcement action was taken against the resident and each of the steps taken were aimed at resolving the issue of the potentially racist report. Considering the above, the steps taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord largely responded appropriately to the report it received regarding alleged ASB by the resident. It undertook steps in line with its policy to investigate the neighbour’s version of events, consider the best approach in line with its policy and communicated with police to receive external advice. Its visit to the resident was carried out largely appropriately by giving the latter an opportunity to put forward his version of events and taking steps in its conversation with the resident aimed at preventing any further reports arising. Though it did cause some distress to the resident by attending the property unannounced with the acceptable behaviour contract accompanied by the police officer, this did not amount to service failure given it had largely adhered to the terms of its ASB policy and acted appropriately at the meeting.