Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council ignored the complainant’s reports of racial harassment and failed to tell her to contact the police or her landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council ignored her reports of racial harassment in 2020 and failed to tell her to contact the police or her landlord. She says the Council should move her into a higher band on the housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes email correspondence from 2020. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The allocations policy says that people who need another bedroom qualify for the medium band on the housing register. People who experience harassment which despite being reported to the landlord or the police cannot be resolved, also qualify for the medium band. People qualify for the high band if they experience harassment which includes violence or threats of abuse and the police are involved.
5. Ms X lives in a one bedroom Housing Association flat with her child. She is in the medium band because she lacks a bedroom. In 2020 she asked for a higher band and reported racial harassment. This included reports of her neighbours making unjustified complaints about her and a van in the car park having a racially offensive doll in the window. Ms X thinks the actions of her neighbours are racially motivated and directed at her.
6. The Council replied in August 2020 and explained why she was in the correct band. It signposted Ms X to the police and to her landlord regarding the neighbour problems. It explained the Council had only received two complaints about her (a noise complaint and a complaint about her bins being left on the path) and that no action was taken against her. It said it could not say if the doll was targeted at Ms X and there was no evidence she was being racially harassed. It also said that to consider a higher band for racial harassment the police would need to be involved.
7. In response to her complaint the Council apologised and said the tone and wording of some its emails could have been better. It confirmed Ms X is in the correct band. It said that she had only recently contacted her landlord about her concerns.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council did not ignore Ms X’s report in 2020 but explained why she is in the correct band and signposted her to the police and to her landlord. Ms X denies this but I have seen the August 2020 email from the Council. Ms X says her reports of racism should have been passed to a manager but Ms X is not a council tenant and the Council provided an appropriate response by signposting her to her landlord and the police.
9. I appreciate Ms X feels she is being racially abused and this must be upsetting. But, there is nothing to suggest the police are involved or that she is experiencing actual violence or threats; on this basis there is nothing to suggest Ms X would qualify for the high band.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman