Miss A complained that between February 2021 and January 2023, Hafod Housing Association (the HA) had not acted in accordance with its policy and procedure regarding her anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) complaints about parking and noise nuisance. In addition, concerning the ASB the HA had failed to take her disability into account and consider whether it was appropriate to make reasonable adjustments (“RAs”) under the Equality Act 2010. Finally, Ms A said that the HA did not handle her complaint in line with its complaint process and did not sufficiently address the ASB matters that she raised in its complaint response to her.
The Ombudsman found that the HA had not always acted in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure, or indeed best practice as set out by the Welsh Government. She also identified that communication with Miss A could have been more effective than it was. In terms of record-keeping, the Ombudsman found that it was not always clear when contact was made or what the ASB management plan was in Miss A’s case. Inaccuracies in some of the responses provided by the HA were also not helpful. The Ombudsman noted that Miss A did not always return noise logs and there were periods where she did not report ASB complaints. There were also instances when the HA did take action. Despite this, shortcomings in the way the HA carried out its ASB policy and procedure, added to Miss A’s distress and caused an injustice. The Ombudsman concluded that the HA’s failings amounted to maladministration. In light of these shortcomings, to that extent only, this part of Miss A’s complaint was upheld.
The Ombudsman identified that there was a lack of meaningful engagement shown by the HA in Miss A’s health issues. This led to missed opportunities for it to consider reasonable adjustments at an early stage. The Ombudsman also noted the HA’s failure to identify and acknowledge this as an issue in its responses to the complaint, including to the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman concluded that had timely RA enquiries been made, this might have given the HA a better understanding, at an earlier stage, about the effect of the noise and parking on Miss A, given her brain tumour diagnosis. She concluded that the HA’s failure to consider RAs in a timely manner, make enquiries and adequately record and document this, amounted to maladministration. It also caused Miss A an injustice due to the additional distress. This part of Miss A’s complaint was also upheld.
Finally, the Ombudsman found shortcomings in the HA’s complaint handling including the robustness of its complaint response to Miss A. This led the Ombudsman to also find maladministration on the part of the HA. She also concluded that Miss A had been caused an injustice as she had to complain further in order to get answers. This aspect of Miss A’s complaint was upheld.
The Ombudsman’s recommendations included the HA providing a written apology to Miss A for the failings identified as well as reviewing its equality duty in ASB cases around RA enquiries and documentation. The HA was also asked to share the report with its Board’s Champion on equality, diversity and inclusion.