ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

A black couple complained to the housing ombudsman that housing association North British Housing had not dealt effectively with their report that they were being racially harassed by the neighbours on either side of their home.

The ombudsman's investigation uncovered a tale that eventually led to a finding of severe maladministration.

The couple and their two children lived in a house, the middle of a block of three, owned and managed by NBH. The three houses were on a small, dead-end spur off a cul-de-sac. The layout of the properties was unusual in that the parking space for the black couple's car was directly in front of the living room window of one of the adjacent houses, between the parking space for that house and the path to its front door.

Their initial report of harassment to NBH alleged that these neighbours were gossiping about them and slandering them and putting rubbish on the black couple's front lawn. The complainants' car had been damaged on their drive in what was clearly a targeted act of vandalism and they alleged that the partner of one of their neighbours had done it, although the evidence for this was circumstantial. They subsequently reported further repeated scratching of their car, which may not have been deliberate, as well as other behaviour that was capable of being interpreted as harassment or as something more innocent.

The ombudsman's investigation revealed that NBH categorised the situation from the outset as a neighbour dispute. It did this despite the fact that the couple expressly alleged racial harassment and that at the time NBH operated a "victim-centred" policy on harassment, which required it to accept a victim's belief that she or he was being harassed. It did not, therefore, follow the procedures in its housing management manual for dealing with cases of harassment while handling this couple's complaint.

For example, an officer visited the neighbours who were the alleged perpetrators of the harassment together, before interviewing the victims, and allowed herself to be influenced by their trivial counter-complaints against the black couple. She ignored the fact that the initial damage to the car was undoubtedly targeted, placing too much emphasis on the lack of evidence as to who had carried it out. NBH's belief that the situation was a neighbour dispute was therefore circular and self-fulfilling.

Who defines racial harassment?
The couple complained to NBH from an early stage about its response to their report of racial harassment. They explicitly asked whether it was for them or the organisation to determine what was racial harassment. Despite this, NBH clung to the idea that it had followed the correct procedure for dealing with a neighbour dispute.

The couple approached the Commission for Racial Equality, which wrote to NBH. Although the commission did not support the couple's allegations of racial harassment, it pointed out that NBH's approach to the case from the outset had given an impression of bias. NBH rejected the commission's advice.

NBH categorised the situation from the outset as a neighbour dispute, despite the fact that the couple expressly alleged racial harassment

Over a period of several months, the couple wrote to NBH setting out how isolated, frightened and frustrated they felt. NBH offered them virtually no support during this time. It did, however, act quickly to investigate complaints against the couple from their neighbours, even though they only raised those complaints when an officer visited them. Eventually, NBH agreed to install CCTV equipment. There was no further damage to the couple's car after that.

The situation continued to deteriorate and the police attended a number of incidents of minor disorder. The couple complained that one neighbour was using an externally mounted CCTV camera in a way that invaded their privacy. NBH accepted the neighbour's claim that the camera monitored her car and the approach to her house only, even though she provided the housing association with footage from the camera showing people coming and going from the couple's house.

Although the couple pursued their complaint all the way through NBH's internal complaints procedure, at no time did anyone dealing with it ask whether the appropriate policy had been followed.

At a hearing, panel members heard from NBH staff after the couple had put their case and been asked to leave – and this fundamental breach of natural justice was exacerbated when the chair of the panel later told the couple that it had not happened.

The ombudsman's investigation found no clear evidence that the couple had been subjected to racial harassment, although this may have been because NBH had failed to investigate adequately. It was clear, in any case, that they felt that they were being harassed and were left feeling unsupported.

It was, however, noted that the couple's own attitude to their neighbours and to NBH staff was often challenging and unpleasant.

The ombudsman found severe maladministration in respect of NBH's failure to respond to the report of racial harassment according to its procedures and its failure to give fair consideration to the couple's complaint.