Brighton and Hove City Council has been instructed to provide compensation totalling £175 after repeated failures to address a tenant’s preferred honorific title.
A Craven Vale resident, who is a former council employee, experienced continued use of the incorrect prefix despite clear instructions to use Miss rather than Mx.
The individual, who is transgender, had initially raised the matter with her line manager before escalating to the council in its capacity as landlord.
The resident stated that the persistent use of the wrong title caused significant distress.
Following her formal request, correspondence from the council’s housing division continued to use Mx, prompting a discrimination complaint.
The resident clarified to the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the Mx designation had never been requested.
An initial complaint was submitted in November 2024 after multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain the correct honorific.
The council’s records contained no notation of the preferred title.
Officials explained that customer services and housing departments maintained separate databases, offering to synchronise all relevant systems.
The resident escalated the matter later in November 2024, supplying documentation confirming her title request.
Council representatives contended that the communication in question had been received in her capacity as staff member rather than resident.
A further complaint was lodged after additional correspondence arrived in December 2024 bearing the Mx title.
The ombudsman determined that modifications to employment records would not automatically synchronise with customer databases.
In its maladministration finding, the ombudsman noted that different council departments maintained individual record systems.
Correspondence dispatched on Tuesday, 3 December 2024 originated from the team handling complaints and information rights functions.
Given the circumstances, the ombudsman stated that it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have updated the resident’s preferred title within those specific functions following the initial complaint.
No evidence indicated that the council deliberately persisted with the Mx title due to the resident’s protected characteristics.
The issue stemmed from inadequate procedures for updating or implementing the resident’s preferred designation within complaint handling operations.
The ombudsman determined that this constituted a service failure.
The council’s inability to maintain accurate records meant the resident received further correspondence using a title she had explicitly identified as incorrect.
This caused frustration and required additional effort to pursue another complaint.
It also contributed to the resident’s perception that the council had disregarded her earlier concerns.
The council was found to have failed to demonstrate consideration of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Required remedial actions include a written apology from a senior council representative, delivered in a substantive and empathetic manner by Thursday, 24 September.
The council must also remit £75 in compensation for distress and inconvenience arising from the incorrect title usage, along with a further £100 for the subsequent handling and discriminatory impact.
Written confirmation is required specifying which departments have amended their records to reflect the resident’s preferred title, identifying services maintaining separate databases, and detailing steps taken to inform those services of the update.
The resident continues to pursue separate complaints against the council through the Housing Ombudsman.
Regarding the determination, the resident commented that the formal finding of maladministration and service failure represents merely a surface manifestation of institutional bias, with multiple oversight and ombudsman investigations currently examining related issues.
She noted that having been compelled into litigation, the financial implications for public funds will be considerable.
Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s housing cabinet member, expressed regret for the distress experienced by the resident and acknowledged acceptance of the Housing Ombudsman’s conclusions.
She stated that the council recognised its shortcomings and committed to enhanced performance.
The council has accepted all recommendations, extended an apology to the resident, and is implementing measures to ensure residents’ preferred names and titles are properly utilised and their concerns receive appropriate consideration.
Last year, the resident also contested an eviction notice issued shortly after she was informed of rent arrears she was unaware existed, as her payments were managed through direct debit arrangements.
Additional complaints lodged by the resident related to data protection breaches, anti-social conduct, and inadequate cleaning standards.
These matters resulted in restrictions limiting her direct communication with council officers.
In April 2025, the secretary of the Craven Vale Residents’ Association raised concerns with the council’s chief executive and Labour council leader, asserting that the resident had been marginalised despite her substantial contributions to the local community.