Summary: There was fault by the Council. Officers delayed responding to emails from the Police and failed to keep acceptable written records after an incident of anti-social behaviour. The Council’s apology, review of procedures and payment towards Miss X’s distress remedies the injustice caused directly by the Council’s fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council response after a hate crime incident. Miss X complains the housing officer delayed responding to emails from Police about whether they could identify another witness.
2. Miss X also complains that no action was taken by the Council about Anti-Social Behaviour after a hate crime incident. And, the concierge of a Council owned tower block failed to take action when told of a hate crime incident.
3. Miss X says that she had to live for 6 months in the same block as the perpetrator and was very distressed, which affected her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers put in by Miss X.
7. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
8. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. There was a hate crime incident against Miss X in a communal area of the block of flats she lived in on 9 October 2020. Miss X was in temporary accommodation in the block of flats.
10. Miss X reported the incident to the Council. She said the concierge on duty did not help her at the time.
11. In November 2020 the Police interviewed the alleged perpetrator.
12. On 15 April 2021 the Police told Miss X the Crown Prosecution Service wanted the Police to locate witnesses to the incident. The Police said it had tried to contact the Council but had not got a response.
13. Miss X has now been rehoused with a permanent tenancy.
14. Miss X made an official complaint to the Council. The Council upheld her complaint and accepted it was at fault on several issues. To remedy her complaint the Council:
• Apologised.
• Provided further training to officers, particularly the housing officer involved with her complaint.
• Told the complainant that disciplinary action was taken against the concierge staff.

My Analysis

15. Miss X has made several specific complaints that I shall look at in turn. First, she complains the concierge did not help her at the time of the incident or report it to the police immediately after. The Council accepted it was at fault, as the housing officer did not interview the concierge when the incident was first reported. The Council has also informed her that disciplinary action has been taken against the concierge.
16. Miss X has also complained that the housing officer did not investigate or take action under Anti-Social behaviour legislation against the perpetrator of the incident. When investigating the incident, the Council found fault. It said that there were no notes or records to show why the housing officer had not opened an anti-behaviour investigation, spoken to the perpetrator or the concierge. The Council said that it intended to provide further training to the officer involved on this point.
17. Miss X also complains that the housing officer delayed responding to emails from the Police. She considers that this may have affected the ability of the Police to prosecute the perpetrator. The Council accepts it was at fault on this point, that there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the emails from the Police.
18. It is clear the Council accepts it was at fault when responding to Miss X’s report of the incident and it has apologised. It has also provided training to officers and I have seen evidence of the revised procedures.
19. I understand the distress caused to Miss X by the incident and she has said that she wants compensation for long term loss of earnings and trauma after the incident. However, we can only remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault, not the trauma caused by the incident itself. It is also the Police’s decision whether to prosecute or not.
20. My view is that the avoidable distress caused to the Miss X by the housing officer’s poor record keeping and delay in responding to emails is sufficient to warrant a financial remedy. From the information I have, the Police was unable to identify the witness they emailed the housing officer about and so it is unlikely that the delay affected the decision on whether or not to prosecute. But, Miss X will never know if things may have been different if the fault had not occurred.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. The Council should pay Miss X £500 within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.
22. The Council should provide evidence to show how it has used the learning from the case to inform training for staff and review procedures. (This part of the remedy has already been completed.)

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council. I consider the remedy outlined above, in addition to the apology and recommendations already carried out by the Council, is a satisfactory remedy to the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman