From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Beyond Housing Limited (202317261)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317261

Beyond Housing Limited

12 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy from February 2023. The allegations of ASB made to the landlord about the resident were made by other tenants of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, the other tenants are referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  2. In March and April 2023, the local MP raised the neighbour’s concerns to the landlord about the smell of drugs caused by the resident. The landlord visited the resident. She said the smell was from medication prescribed to her. She complained that the neighbour was using CCTV to record and listen to her. The landlord told her it would seek advice about her prescription. It said that it had previously confirmed that the neighbour’s CCTV was not positioned towards her home.
  3. In May 2023, the landlord sought advice about the resident’s prescription. In June 2023, the MP raised the neighbour’s continued concerns to it about drug smells, as well as parking issues. The landlord told the MP that it had taken qualified advice about the drug smells and would not be taking enforcement action against the resident. It advised that parking was not assigned and worked on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis.
  4. In July and August 2023, the resident and neighbour raised drug, parking, and aggressive behaviour issues to the landlord. It visited and opened ASB cases for both. It sent letters to all residents that explained the parking situation would not be handled as ASB, but asked for respectful behaviour and offered mediation. It corresponded with the MP and a local councillor, on the neighbours’ and resident’s behalf respectively. The resident complained to the landlord that it had been aware of the neighbours’ behaviour for years but had not forewarned her when she moved in. It told her that it would cold call on the neighbour to reassess their CCTV. On 29 August 2023, we asked the landlord to handle the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint.
  5. On 4 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it had received several reports about her but that no breach of tenancy had been found, and it had taken no action against her. It reiterated that it would reassess the neighbour’s CCTV. It stated that it had not received reports of unacceptable behaviour before she moved in and therefore could not have made her aware of this when she took up occupation. During September and October 2023, it confirmed to the resident that the neighbour’s CCTV could not be used in the way the resident had previously suggested. It sent her a formal warning for abusive behaviour, which she expressed her unhappiness with. It closed the neighbour’s ASB case against her. We asked it to provide her a stage 2 response by the end of November 2023.
  6. On 21 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it had closed her ASB case against the neighbour. On 23 November 2023, it sent her its stage 2 response. It explained its actions and position on all the above. It said that it had partially upheld her complaint, as it was unable to evidence that it had written to her when the ASB case against her had been closed.
  7. The resident told us that she did not feel the landlord had done anything to address the issues she had raised. She expressed concerns that the landlord’s records would not reflect everything that had happened. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the events above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The information provided to us by the landlord included its handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s use of the communal garden in 2024. The Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. The resident’s concerns about the use of the garden occurred after the conclusion of her complaint that was brought to us. This report is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of matters up to the end of November 2023, when the resident’s complaint concluded.

The landlord’s handling of the ASB

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must not harass “anyone in the locality of [their] home or the local area”. It defines harassment as including, but not limited to, actions or behaviour that threaten the health or well-being of others.  The landlord’s ASB policy includes “verbal abuse” and “harassment” in its list of matters that it classes as ASB. It includes “inconsiderate parking” and “minor personal differences, such as dirty looks” in its list of matters that it does not class as ASB. It says that when a report is made, it will consider the type and severity of the incident to identify if it constitutes ASB.
  2. The policy goes on to state that:
    1. It will consider the most appropriate early intervention tools, including mediation.
    2. Its investigations will be fair and impartial.
    3. It will take a proactive and multi-agency approach and use evidence to establish unacceptable behaviour.
    4. It will monitor the effect of any action it takes before closing an ASB case.
    5. It will send a closure letter once the case is closed.
  3. The evidence shows that in early April 2023, the landlord visited the resident following the report of drug smell issues from the local MP. A few days later, the resident made her own report to the landlord, which included the smell from the neighbour’s bins and the way they had looked at her. During this investigation, she told us that she was harassed by the neighbours from the start of her tenancy.
  4. The landlord called and visited the resident again during the remainder of April 2023. It confirmed that it had not opened an ASB case against her and committed to support her however it could. It took further details of her prescribed medication and advised that it would seek expert advice. During May 2023, it sought police, legal, and medical opinion that confirmed the resident’s prescribed medication. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy to act fairly and impartially and take a multi-agency approach.
  5. In mid-July 2023, the landlord received reports from both the resident and neighbour about inconsiderate parking. It acted promptly when it visited the resident the next day. It advised her that the matter was not ASB but agreed to write to all residents, which it did a few days later. Its letter included an offer of mediation. Its actions were in line with its policy.
  6. During August 2023, the landlord received further reports about the resident from the MP and neighbours. The resident told the landlord that she had experienced verbal abuse. The landlord opened ASB cases for the resident and neighbour and offered mediation to them both. It was appropriate for it to assign separate housing officers to each and complete home visits. This demonstrated a fair and impartial approach. The resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord about the neighbour’s CCTV.
  7. On 4 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that its investigation of her case against the neighbour was ongoing. It was appropriate for it to commit to reassessing their CCTV, which was in line with the evidence-based approach of its policy. The same day the housing officer, who was investigating the neighbour’s ASB case, offered to visit the resident to discuss the evidence against her. While the resident declined the offer, this demonstrated a fair and impartial approach.
  8. On 7 September 2023, the landlord visited the neighbour unannounced. It confirmed that their CCTV could not record the resident in the way that she (the resident) suspected. It provided the resident with a timely assurance about this. Over the following days, it received further evidence of the resident’s alleged behaviour. On 11 September 2023, it issued a formal warning to her. While the resident expressed her unhappiness with this, the landlord did demonstrate that it had taken an evidence-based approach in line with its policy. It also again responded to her request to discuss the matter promptly.
  9. Near the end of September 2023, the landlord visited the neighbour and confirmed that there had been no further incidents with the resident since her warning had been given. On 19 October 2023, it closed the neighbour’s ASB case against the resident. This was in line with its policy to monitor the effect of any enforcement action before closing a case.
  10. On 23 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had partially upheld her complaint, as it was unable to show that it had written to her when it had closed the neighbour’s ASB case against her the previous month. Nonetheless, the landlord’s policy only states that the person who had made the ASB report would receive confirmation that the case had been closed. As such, it did not act outside of its policy.
  11. The resident expressed her concern to us regarding what she believed would be the landlord’s limited records. The landlord acknowledged to us that it had previously identified that it had not always used its ASB case management system as it would expect. It was notable that much of the information that it provided was in the form of emails and diary entries from the period assessed. Nonetheless, it did demonstrate its learning from this and implemented a new customer contact recording system in January 2024. It otherwise handled the matter in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review whether its policy should reflect the need to write to both parties to confirm the closure of an ASB case.